REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Effective legal protection and access to justice 2023 Annual report on the application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
Date: 2023-12-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, access to the courts, activity report, application of EU law, digitisation, electronic government, fundamental rights, judicial proceedings, right to justice

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 4.12.2023  COM(2023) 786 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Effective legal protection and access to justice  2023 Annual report on the application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights    
 
 
Effective legal protection and access to justice  

2023 Annual report on the application of the 
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights 

Table of contents 

1. 

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1 

2.  EU law on effective legal protection and access to justice ............................................................... 4 

3.  Member States’ measures to provide for effective legal protection .............................................. 17 

4.  Provision of effective legal protection through courts ................................................................... 29 

5.  EU funding for effective legal protection ........................................................................................ 34 

6.  Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

Introduction 

The  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European  Union  (the  Charter)  brings  together  the 
fundamental  rights  afforded  to  everyone  in  the  European  Union  (EU).  It  emphasises  the 
interconnectedness  between  fundamental  rights  and  the  founding  values  of  human  dignity, 
freedom, equality and solidarity, and the principles of democracy and the rule of law. As binding 
primary law, the Charter ensures the protection of fundamental rights throughout the EU. 

When does the Charter apply? 

Since  2009,  the  Charter  has  the  same  legal  status  as  the  Treaties,  the  EU  law  on  which  EU 
legislation is based1. EU institutions must comply with it in all their activities, and Member States 
must also comply with it when they implement EU law2. 

Member States implement EU law notably when they: 

- give effect to EU legislation by adopting national implementing measures; 
- adopt legislation where EU law imposes specific obligations, or allows for a derogation3;  

- implement EU funding programmes in line with the EU funding rules.  

As set out in the 2020 Strategy to strengthen the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights 
in  the  EU  (the  Charter  strategy)4,  the  Commission  presents  thematic  annual  reports  on  the 
application of the Charter focusing on areas of strategic relevance5. This year’s Charter report is 
dedicated  to  effective  legal  protection  and  access  to  justice  as  a  precondition  for  enjoying 
fundamental rights, in a manner that leaves no one behind6.  

Progress in implementing the Charter strategy in 2022- 2023: 

- 

- 

In December 2022, the Commission adopted its 2022 Annual report on the application 
of  the  Charter,  dedicated  to  the  role  of  civil  society  organisations  and  human  rights 
defenders in upholding fundamental rights7. 
In 2023, the Commission organised a series of seminars with stakeholders on how the 
EU and the Member States can develop their role to protect, support and empower civil 
society organisations and human rights defenders. In November 2023, follow-up actions 
were discussed in a high-level event organised with the Spanish Council presidency.  

1 Article 6 TEU. 
2 Article 51(1) of the Charter. 
3 When Member States adopt laws in an area where the EU has no competence and when no EU law exists, they are 
not implementing EU law and the Charter is not applicable to them. However, many fundamental rights enshrined in 
the Charter are also set out in national constitutions and case law, as well as in the European Convention on Human 
Rights, to which all Member States are signatories. 
4 COM(2020) 711 final. 
5 See previous reports: A thriving civic space for upholding fundamental rights in the EU - 2022 Annual report on the 
application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, COM/2022/716;  Protecting fundamental rights in the digital 
age - 2021 Annual report on the application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, COM/2021/819.  
6 Charter strategy, p. 1. 
7 COM(2022)716 final; COM(2021) 819 final. 

1 

 
 
 
-  So far, 25 Member States have nominated a Charter focal point to boost cooperation 

and promote the effective application of the Charter in their Member State.  

-  The Commission also launched training courses for EU staff on applying the Charter 
in impact assessments. Training for justice professionals on the application of the Charter 
continues to be provided under the European judicial training strategy 2021-20248. The 
European  training  platform  of  the  European  e-Justice  portal9  contains  e-learning 
materials and training on fundamental rights directed at legal practitioners and justice 
professionals. 

- 

In the context of the ‘horizontal enabling condition’ on the effective application of the 
Charter  (Charter  HEC)10,  the  Commission  has  assessed  all  financial  programmes 
submitted  by  the  Member  States  to  check  that  effective  arrangements  are  in  place  to 
ensure that the Charter is respected in the implementation of the relevant EU Funds. The 
Commission has so far assessed that the Charter HEC is fulfilled by all Member States, 
with three exceptions11. No relevant expenditure can be reimbursed until the conditions 
set out in the Charter HEC on the implementation of these programmes are met. The 
Commission also closely monitors the situation.  

-  The  Commission  has  continued  to  uphold  fundamental  rights  through  infringement 

proceedings12. 

- 

It has also raised awareness about fundamental rights and provided information through 
the  #RightHereRightNow  campaign13,  the  ‘Your  rights  in  the  EU’  section  of  the 
European e-Justice portal14 and the Commission’s website15. 

-  The EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) has continued to update its Charterpedia 
database, which holds fundamental rights materials from across the EU16. The FRA has 

8 Ensuring justice in the EU — A European judicial training strategy for 2021-2024; COM(2020). 
9 https://e-justice.europa.eu/european-training-platform/home_en 
10 Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 (Common Provisions Regulation). 
11 Poland has itself declared that it does not fulfil the Charter HEC whereas the Commission has found that Hungary 
has not yet fulfilled the Charter HEC for all Funds covered by the Common Provisions Regulation. Following an 
initial declaration from Cyprus that it does not fulfil the Charter HEC for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund 
and the Border Management and Visa Instrument, the Commission is now assessing a new declaration that Cyprus 
fulfils the Charter HEC. 
12 See, for example, the infringement proceedings initiated in July 2022 over a Hungarian law which discriminates 
against people based on their sexual orientation and gender identity. The Commission considers the Hungarian law to 
violate in a systematic manner several fundamental rights. This includes the inviolability of human dignity, the right 
to freedom of expression and information, the right to private and family life, as well as the right to non-discrimination. 
Due to of the gravity of these violations, the contested provisions also violate the common values laid down in Article 
2 TEU; https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_2689.  
13 The #RightHereRightNow (europa.eu) campaign ran from December 2021 to December 2022 on social media and 
in media events. Partners included CSOs, NHRIs and equality bodies, FRA and other EU bodies and agencies. 
14 https://e-justice.europa.eu/512/EN/your_rights. 
15  https://ec.europa.eu/info/aid-development-cooperation-fundamental-rights/your-rights-eu/eu-charter-fundamental-
rights_en. 
16 This covers a substantial amount of information on the Charter, including case law by national courts that refers to 
the Charter. FRA made this tool also available in a Charter-app.  

2 

 
 
 
also published ‘Charter case studies – Trainer’s manual’17 that includes guidance on the 
organisation of Charter training workshops in ten EU languages. 

The 2023 Charter report focuses on effective legal protection and access to justice, as these rights 
are vital to ensure the full application of the Charter and of EU laws that promote and protect the 
rights which the Charter enshrines. Without effective legal protection, individuals are not able to 
effectively assert their rights, including their fundamental rights.  

Effective legal protection and access to justice moreover uphold a culture of fundamental rights 
and the rule of law, as emphasised in the Commission’s annual Rule of Law Reports18. It is for 
the national courts and tribunals and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to ensure 
the  full  application  of  EU  law  in  all  Member  States  and  the  legal  protection  of  the  rights  of 
individuals  under  that  law19.  In  line  with  Article  19(1)  TEU,  Member  States  must  provide 
sufficient remedies to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by EU law20. 

The Charter report is therefore complementary to the Commission’s annual Rule of Law reports21, 
where the justice pillar addresses judicial independence, quality, and efficiency of national justice 
systems by focusing on access to justice for all through judicial and non-judicial remedies22. 
It  provides  a  fundamental  rights  perspective  on  access  to  justice23,  defined  as  the  ability  of 
everyone to seek and obtain a just resolution of legal problems through a range of legal and justice 
services, in a manner that complies with fundamental rights24. The report also complements other 

17 https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2022/charter-case-studies-trainers-manual. 
18 See the annual Rule of Law reports. 
19 See Opinion 1/09 (Agreement creating a unified patent litigation system) of 8 March 2011, EU:C:2011:123, para. 
68; Opinion 2/13 (Accession of the EU to the ECHR) of 18 December 2014, EU:C:2014:2454, para 175; judgment of 
27 February 2018, Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses, C-64/16, EU:C:2018:117, para. 33; and judgment of 
6 March 2018, Achmea, C-284/16, EU:C:2018:158, para. 36. 
20 Judgment of 27 February 2018, Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses, C-64/16, EU:C:2018:117, para. 34. 
21 The annual Rule of Law reports examine developments in Member States under four key areas. Under the justice 
pillar, effectiveness and independence of justice systems are assessed as essential elements of legal protection and for 
upholding  the  rule  of  law.  The  Commission  assesses  developments  regarding  perceived  judicial  independence, 
appointment and dismissal of judges, autonomy and independence of prosecution services, and disciplinary procedures 
for  judges  and  prosecutors.  The  assessment  of  the  quality  and  efficiency  of  justice  has  covered  the  length  of 
proceedings, the role of lawyers in the justice system, and investments in the physical and technical infrastructure of 
judicial  authorities.  These  essential  elements  of  safeguarding  effective  legal  protection  have  been  extensively 
addressed in the Rule of Law Report. 
22 See the OECD, Recommendation of the Council on Access to Justice and People-Centred Justice Systems (2023) 
and OECD Framework and Good Practice Principles for People-Centered Justice (2021). Contribution by the OECD, 
pp. 1-2.  
23  Access  to  justice  allows  individuals  to  protect  themselves  against  infringements  of  their  rights  and  requires 
governments to respect and protect the rights of those within their jurisdiction. It encompasses several fundamental 
rights, such as the right to a fair trial and the right to an effective remedy. FRA and Council of Europe, Handbook on 
European law relating to access to justice (2016), pp. 15-16. Also Contribution by the OHCHR, p. 1. 
24 Access to justice |Government at a Glance 2021 | OECD iLibrary (oecd-ilibrary.org). 

3 

 
 
 
relevant policy initiatives, such as the EU Justice Scoreboard25, the Union of equality strategies26 
and the European democracy action plan27. 

This report aims to give an overview of the relevant legal EU framework in place by describing 
recent developments (2020-2023). It presents both achievements and challenges in the Member 
States by providing a snapshot of the elements identified by stakeholders. The examples of national 
measures are non-exhaustive and included for illustrative purposes only.   

What information is this report based on? 

The report relies on the Commission's and the FRA's qualitative assessment of the feedback from 
consultations, and of other sources, including: 

- 

- 

- 

targeted  consultations  with:  (i)  Member  States28  and  the  Charter  focal  points29;  (ii) 
international  organisations30;  and  (iii)  the  European  Network  of  National  Human  Rights 
Institutions  (ENNHRI)  and  the  European  Network  of  Equality  Bodies  (Equinet)  and  their 
members; 

an  online  consultation  through  the  FRA’s  civil  society  network,  the  Fundamental  Rights 
platform31, to gather respondents’32 experiences on measures for effective legal protection and 
access to justice, as well as a consultation contribution from the FRA; 

contributions for other Commission reports, such as the Rule of Law reports and the Justice 
Scoreboard. 

2.  EU law on effective legal protection and access to justice 

Following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon in December 200933, the EU has developed 
a comprehensive legal framework with judicial and non-judicial remedies, which individuals can 
seek when they believe their rights set out in EU law are breached. At the same time, several EU 
instruments go further and provide for minimum standards on effective legal protection and access 

25 Justice Scoreboard. 
26 Union of Equality strategies.  
27 COM(2020)790. 
28 Member State contributions available at Annual reports on the application of the Charter (europa.eu). 
29 23 of the 27 Member States responded to the targeted consultation. 
30 Council of Europe, United Nations and Office of Economic Co-operation and Development.  
31 https://fra.europa.eu/en/cooperation/civil-society (placeholder for FRA’s online summary). 
32 The online consultation was addressed to non-governmental organisations and institutions of civil society active in 
the field of fundamental rights through the Fundamental Rights platform (which reaches 743 recipients) across the 
EU-27 and Albania, North Macedonia and Serbia, as well as other civil society organisations and judicial networks. 
This  consultation  collected  a  total  of  115  responses  from  primarily  CSOs  operating  at  local,  national,  EU  and 
international levels, along with NHRIs, ombudspersons, legal associations, law firms, researchers, and judicial training 
institutions. 
33  EU  competence  has  widened  in  freedom,  security  and  justice  (Title  V  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the 
European Union (TFEU)). 

4 

 
 
 
 
to justice. The effective legal protection provided under EU law is an illustration of how the EU 
benefits people's daily lives in a wide range of  situations by empowering people to enjoy their 
fundamental rights under the Charter. This chapter showcases the broad scope of the EU law on 
effective  legal  protection  and  access  to  justice.  In  practice,  these  EU  rules  often  apply  in 
conjunction with national rules34, which highlights the complementarity of the EU’s and Member 
States’ actions, as further described in Chapter 3.  

2.1.  Facilitating access to justice through digitalisation efforts 

Access to justice can be facilitated by increasing the digitalisation of judicial proceedings, making 
justice  more  accessible.  The  possibility  to  make  submissions  and  communicate  with  courts 
electronically and to participate in oral hearings through videoconferencing can improve access to 
an effective remedy within a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 47 of the Charter. The 
proposal for a regulation on the digitalisation of judicial cooperation35 provides a legal basis 
for the use of remote communication technology for hearings in civil and commercial matters with 
cross-border implications, and for judicial cooperation procedures in criminal matters.  

Digitalisation of justice must be rolled out carefully and needs to ensure respect for fundamental 
rights, including the right to a fair trial, to an effective remedy and to protection of personal data 
and the rights of defence in criminal proceedings36. To ensure accessibility of judicial services and 
proceedings  for  those  without  sufficient  digital  skills  or  access  to  digital  tools,  as  well  as  for 
persons who may have difficulties in accessing digital justice environments, traditional channels 
of communication and personal participation should also be maintained37. Artificial intelligence 
applications can likewise support judicial decision-making, but it is important to ensure that they 
function properly and to mitigate the potential bias their use may entail, including based on sex, 
‘racial’38 or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation39.  

34 Charter strategy, p. 4. 
35 Proposal for a Regulation on the digitalisation of judicial cooperation and access to justice in cross-border civil, 
commercial and criminal matters, and amending certain acts in the field of judicial cooperation, COM(2021)759. The 
Regulation  would  establish  a  European  electronic  access  point  which  natural  and  legal  persons  may  use  to 
communicate with courts and other judicial authorities in certain civil and commercial matters. Also Proposal for a 
Directive  amending  Council  Directive  2003/8/EC,  Council  Framework  Decisions  2002/465/JHA,  2002/584/JHA, 
2003/577/JHA,  2005/214/JHA,  2006/783/JHA,  2008/909/JHA,  2008/947/JHA,  2009/829/JHA  and  2009/948/JHA, 
and Directive 2014/41/EU of, as regards digitalisation of judicial cooperation, COM(2021)760. 
36 Digitalisation of justice in the EU. A toolbox of opportunities, COM(2020)710; Charter strategy, p. 13. 
37 Commission Communication on the digitalisation of justice, p. 2-3, 5, referring to the need to take into account 
older people, children and disadvantaged individuals, and to ensure the accessibility of digital technologies for persons 
with disabilities.  
38 The use of the term ‘racial origin’ in the Treaty of the Functioning of the EU and Council Directive 2000/43/EC 
does not imply any acceptance by the European Union of theories that attempt to determine the existence of separate 
human races.  
39 Commission Communication on the digitalisation of justice, pp. 10-11. Also FRA 2020, Getting the future right – 
artificial intelligence and fundamental rights; referring to access to justice in line with Article 47 of the Charter as a 
concern in the AI context; FRA 2022, ‘Bias in algorithms – artificial intelligence and discrimination’. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
2.2.  Rights in criminal proceedings 

In EU criminal procedural law, six directives set out minimum standards40 on safeguards for 
suspects and accused persons41. They apply to people suspected or accused of having committed 
a criminal offence, and facilitate their legal protection. These standards cover, for instance, the 
right  to  interpretation  and  translation  of  essential  documents  for  those  who  do  not  speak  or 
understand the language of the criminal proceedings42; the right to be promptly informed of their 
rights and the charges and accusations under national law and to have access to the materials of 
the case43; the right of access to a lawyer, as well as to have a third party informed upon deprivation 
of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of 
liberty; the right to remain silent and not to incriminate oneself; and the right to legal aid44. These 
directives are complemented by three Recommendations on safeguards for vulnerable persons45; 
the right to legal aid for suspects or accused persons46; and the procedural rights of suspects and 
accused persons subject to pre-trial detention47. 

The  directives,  in  particular  Directive  2016/343,  enshrine  fundamental  principles  of  criminal 
procedural  law  like  the  presumption  of  innocence.  EU  rules48  prohibit  premature  public 
references to the guilt of the suspect or accused person by authorities, provide that the burden of 
proof for establishing the guilt should be on the prosecution, and enshrine the right to remain silent 
and not to incriminate oneself, as well as the right to be present at trial49. Moreover, to cover the 
costs of legal assistance, suspects and accused persons who lack sufficient resources are entitled 
to legal aid50. 

The EU has also put in place specific safeguards for cases where the suspect or accused person 
is a child51. Member States are required to ensure that the child’s best interests are considered in 
any decision affecting them throughout the proceedings in accordance with Article 24(2) of the 

40 These rights build on the standards set out the Charter, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and 
related case-law. 
41 Directive 2010/64/EU, OJ L 280, 26.10.2010; Directive 2012/13/EU, OJ L 142, 1.6.2012; Directive 2013/48/EU, 
OJ L 294, 6.11.2013, p. 1–12; Directive (EU) 2016/343, OJ L 65, 11.3.2016; Directive (EU) 2016/1919 of 26 October 
2016, OJ L 297, 4.11.201, Directive (EU) 2016/800, OJ L 132, 21.5.2016, p. 1–20 (‘criminal procedural directives’). 
42 Directive 2016/343/EU. 
43 Directive 2012/13/EU.  
44 Directive 2013/48/EU and Directive (EU) 2016/1919. 
45 OJ C 378, 24.12.2013, p. 8. 
46 OJ C 378, 24.12.2013, p. 11. 
47 OJ L 86, 24.3.2023, p. 44–57. 
48 Directive (EU) 2016/343. 
49 Challenges have been identified in the implementation of the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings in 
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Poland and Portugal as regards the effectiveness 
of remedies if defendants are publicly referred to as guilty. Challenges have also related to the potentially prejudiced 
behaviour of authorities towards certain defendants, as well as their excessive presentation in the media. FRA (2021), 
Presumption of innocence and related rights – Professional perspectives, pp. 51 – 52, 92. 
50 Directive (EU) 2016/1919, OJ L 297, 4.11.2016. Also Commission Recommendation on the right to legal aid  for 
suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings, OJ C 378, 24.12.2013, p. 11. In addition, Directive 2003/8/EC. 
Directive 2013/48/EU and Directive (EU) 2016/1919. 
51 Directive (EU) 2016/800 applies to persons under 18 years of age and provides for the extension of the safeguards 
enshrined therein beyond the age of 18, where the conditions established in Article 2(3) are fulfilled.  

6 

 
 
 
Charter. Member States must establish and apply more stringent standards than those applicable 
to adults with regards to key procedural rights, such as the right of access to a lawyer. Member 
States  are  also  required  to  introduce  targeted,  child-specific  safeguards  and  rights,  taking  into 
account children’s needs and vulnerabilities, and their capacity to understand and to effectively 
participate in  the proceedings52. Each  child’s situation should be individually  assessed,  has the 
right  to  be  accompanied  by  a  holder  of  parental  responsibility53,  their  questioning  should  be 
recorded where appropriate; and they should receive specific treatment when deprived of liberty54. 
The Commission’s assessment of the national transposition measures revealed great variation, in 
particular due to inherent differences between national justice systems and different standards on 
child-friendly justice55. 

2.3.  Judicial cooperation instruments in criminal matters 

Judicial cooperation in  criminal  matters is  regulated through several  instruments,  which aim to 
enhance the efficient administration of justice in cross-border cases and provide for the effective 
judicial protection of the individuals concerned. The European Arrest Warrant56 (EAW) aims 
at avoiding prolonged detention of the person concerned by requiring Member States to swiftly 
process  EAW  decisions57.  The  Commission  recently  proposed  common  rules  under  which 
criminal proceedings can be transferred from a Member State to another58, which include 
provisions  on  the  right  to  an  effective  remedy  against  the  decision  accepting  the  transfer. The 
Regulation  on  electronic  evidence59  will  make  it  faster  for  law  enforcement  and  judicial 
authorities to obtain electronic evidence. In line with Article 47 of the Charter, it grants any person 
whose data has been requested the right to an effective remedy.  

2.4.  Victims’ rights 

The EU has established comprehensive fundamental rights standards to support and protect victims 
of crime in the Victims’ Rights Directive60, which requires Member States to ensure that victims 
of  all  crime  are  recognised  and  treated  in  a  respectful,  professional,  and  non-discriminatory 
manner. It facilitates their access to justice by obliging the Member States to provide information 

52 Directive (EU) 2016/800. 
53  Or  in  specific  circumstances  by  another  appropriate  adult  nominated  by  the  child  and  accepted  as  such  by  the 
competent authorities. 
54 A first preliminary reference (C-603/22) concerning the scope of application of the Directive (about who should be 
treated as a child for the purposes of the Directive) is pending before the CJEU.  
55 The evaluation of the compliance assessment’s results is ongoing, including as regards the availability of effective 
remedies for the violation of children’s procedural rights. An implementation report will be published in 2024.  
56 Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures 
between Member States (2002/584/JHA), OJ L 190 18.7.2002, p. 1. The procedural directives apply to persons 
sought under an EAW; https://commission.europa.eu/law/cross-border-cases/judicial-cooperation/types-judicial-
cooperation/european-arrest-warrant_en. 
57  Member  States  are  also  required  to  provide  remedies  against  the  recognition  and  execution  of  a  freezing  or 
confiscation order in cross-border cases. See Regulation (EU) 2018/1805, OJ L 303, 28.11.2018, p. 1–38.  
58 Proposal for a Regulation on the transfer of proceedings in criminal matters, COM/2023/185. 
59 Regulation (EU) 2023/1543, OJ L 191, 28.7.2023, p. 118–180. 
60 Directive 2012/29/EU, OJ L 315, 14.11.2012, p. 57.  

7 

 
 
 
on the proceedings and support and protect victims in line with their individual needs. Victims 
have, for instance, the right to be heard during criminal proceedings and to provide evidence, the 
right to access legal aid when they participate in criminal proceedings as parties and the right to a 
decision  on  compensation  from  the  offender.  To  further  strengthen  the  victims’  rights61,  the 
Commission adopted a proposal to amend the Victims’ Rights Directive62, aiming to provide better 
information, support, and protection to victims through, for instance, access to e-justice, and to 
enable them to participate more effectively in criminal proceedings.  

Specific EU legislation contains targeted rules safeguarding the rights of victims of certain types 
of  crime63.  The  Anti-trafficking  Directive64  requires  Member  States  to  ensure  that  victims  of 
trafficking  in  human  beings  are  appropriately  protected,  including  through  witness  protection 
programmes, and have access to legal counselling and representation. In addition, child victims 
are entitled to the appointment of a representative and to child-friendly measures during interviews 
and  criminal  proceedings.  Following  an  evaluation  of  the  Anti-trafficking  Directive,  the 
Commission  proposed  to  modernise  the  anti-trafficking  framework  and  address  gaps  in 
identification  and  referral  for  assistance  and  support  of  victims65.  Moreover,  the  Commission 
continues to focus on the implementation of the EU Anti-trafficking Directive and the EU Strategy 
on  Combatting  Trafficking  in  Human  Beings  (2021-2025)66,  notably  when  it  comes  to  the 
protection of victims in criminal proceedings and access to compensation.  

Child  victims  of  sexual  abuse  and  exploitation  are  protected  under  the  Child  Sexual  Abuse 
Directive67,  which  encourages  anyone  with  knowledge  or  suspicion  of  child  sexual  abuse  or 
exploitation to report it. In May 2022, the Commission proposed68 dedicated rules on online child 
sexual  abuse  and  exploitation,  including  measures  to  report  and  remove  abuse  content,  and  to 
support victims with the removal of the material depicting their abuse.  

61 In 2022, the Commission adopted the evaluation of the Victims’ Rights Directive. It shows that over the past ten 
years,  the  directive  has  contributed  to  improving  the  lives of  victims.  However,  there  are  situations  where  not  all 
victims can fully rely on their rights due to a lack of precision in the drafting of some of the rights in the Directive. 
Shortcomings were identified in relation to the five main rights. Furthermore, in some Member States, progress has 
remained slow in the provision of support services, the reporting of crime and ensuring that all victims can benefit 
from protection measures and have effective judicial remedies at disposal to challenge the measures to protect them 
from secondary and repeat victimisation. FRA (2023), Underpinning victims’ rights: support services, reporting and 
protection. 
62  Proposal  for  a  directive  amending  Directive  2012/29/EU,  and  replacing  Council  Framework  Decision 
2001/220/JHA,  COM  (2023)  424.  The  revision  follows  up  on  the  EU  strategy  on  victims’  rights  (2020-2025), 
COM/2020/258, where the Commission noted the need to further empower victims of crime, so they can report crime, 
participate in criminal proceedings, claim compensation, and recover from the consequences. 
63 See for instance Directive 2011/99/EU, OJ L 338, 21.12.2011, p. 2. Regulation (EU) 606/2013, OJ L 181, 
29.6.2013, p. 4. Council Directive 2004/80/, OJ L 261, 6.8.2004, p. 15. 
64 Directive 2011/36/EU, OJ L 101, 15.4.2011, p. 1–11. 
65 https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/news/eu-proposes-new-rules-fight-trafficking-human-beings-2022-12-18_en.  
66 COM(2021) 171. 
67 Directive 2011/93/EU, OJ L 335, 17.12.2011, p. 1–14. Also EU strategy for a more effective fight against child 
sexual abuse, COM/2020/607. 
68 Proposal for a Regulation laying down rules to prevent and combat child sexual abuse, COM/2022/209.  

8 

 
 
 
In addition, the proposal for a directive on combating violence against women and domestic 
violence69 aims to strengthen access to justice of victims of gender-based violence and domestic 
violence  by  responding  to  their  specific  needs70.  It  also  proposes  the  criminalisation  of  certain 
forms of violence that disproportionately affect women, such as rape based on the lack of consent, 
as well as female genital mutilation, and some forms of gendered cyber violence71.  

2.5.  Other situations of vulnerability   

People  who  report  illegal  or  immoral  activities  that  they  find  out  about  in  their  workplace 
(‘whistleblowers’) are in a position of vulnerability vis-à-vis their employers. The Whistleblower 
Protection Directive72 prohibits and requires sanctions for all forms of retaliation and provides 
whistleblowers  with  a  strong  set  of  legal  actions,  including  reinstatement  or  compensation  for 
damage suffered and interim relief to stop threats or acts of retaliation. 

Journalists,  human  rights  defenders  and  others  involved  in  public  debate  in  a  matter  of  public 
interest  are in  a similarly vulnerable position when confronted with  strategic lawsuits against 
public  participation,  known  as  ‘SLAPPs’.  A  2022  proposal73  would  enable  judges  to  swiftly 
dismiss  such  manifestly  unfounded  lawsuits  and  establishes  several  procedural  safeguards  and 
remedies,  such  as  the  full  award  of  costs,  compensation  for  damages  and  penalties74.  The 
Commission  has  also  published  Recommendations  to  Member  States  on  measures  to  protect 
journalists and media workers75. 

69 Proposal for a directive on combating violence against women and domestic violence, COM (2022)105. 
70 While most conducts of violence against women and domestic violence are criminalised at national level, gaps and 
divergences in national criminal law and at EU level remain, for instance, with regard to cyber violence against women 
and  intimate  partner  cyber  violence,  such  as  ICT-facilitated  stalking  and  non-consensual  dissemination  of  private 
images. With regard to sexual violence, the use of force or threats as an essential element of rape is required in 16 
Member  States  instead  of  focusing  on  lack  of  consent,  which  results  in  unequal  protection  for  victims  of  sexual 
violence across the EU. Gaps also exist with respect to other forms of violence against women and domestic violence 
(e.g.,  female  genital  mutilation,  forced  marriage,  forced  abortion  and  forced  sterilisation).  For  more  information: 
Impact  Assessment  Report  accompanying  the  proposal  for  a  directive  on  combating  violence  against  women  and 
domestic  violence, SWD(2022) 62 final. The proposal aims to ensure effective access to justice through EU-level 
approximation of criminal definitions and sanctions related to specifically serious forms of violence against women, 
as well as by ensuring gender-sensitivity and respect for the rights of child victims and witnesses.  
71 The EU is also party to the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women 
and domestic violence and therefore bound by its comprehensive standards on judicial cooperation in criminal matters, 
asylum and non-refoulement, as well as with regard to the EU’s public administration. 
72 Directive (EU) 2019/1937, OJ L 305, 26.11.2019 p.17. 
73 Proposal for a directive on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or 
abusive court proceedings (“Strategic lawsuits against public participation”), COM/2022/177. 
74 The complementary Recommendation encourages Member States to provide for necessary safeguards to address 
SLAPPs  also  in  domestic  cases  and  all  proceedings.  The  inclusion  in  the  scope  of  the  Anti-SLAPP  Directive  of 
environmental  defenders  who  may  possess  valuable  information  concerning  breaches  of  environmental  law 
contributes to the implementation of the EU’s international obligations under the Aarhus Convention. 
75 Commission Recommendation of 16.9.2021 on ensuring the protection, safety and empowerment of journalists and 
other media professionals in the European Union, C(2021) 6650. 

9 

 
 
 
A  recent  proposal76  aims  to  increase  the  protection  of  adults  in  cross-border  situations  and 
contribute  to  safeguarding  their  fundamental  rights  when,  by  reason  of  an  impairment  or 
insufficiency  of  their  personal  faculties,  adults  are  unable  to  protect  their  own  interests.  The 
proposal aims at ensuring that measures concerning their protection or legal capacity are rapidly 
recognised and that wishes expressed in advance through ‘powers of representation’ are respected.  

A 2022 proposal on the recognition of parenthood77 between Member States aims to strengthen 
the protection of the fundamental rights of children in cross-border situations, such as their 
rights  derived  from  parenthood  in  another  Member  State,  including  their  right  to  parental 
representation on matters such as health and schooling. As such, the parents of a child in a Member 
State would continue to be the parents of the child in other Member States, which is not always 
the case today. 

2.6.  Victims of discrimination  

The effective legal protection of victims of discrimination has been at the centre of EU law for 
decades, where several equality directives78 provide for the right of access to legal procedures to 
complain about discrimination and the right of associations to intervene in court on behalf or in 
support of victims. The Pay Transparency Directive79 empowers workers to claim their right to 
equal  pay  between  women  and  men  for  equal  work  or  work  of  equal  value.  Victims  can  be 
represented in administrative or court proceedings by associations, workers’ representatives, and 
bodies, such as equality bodies or trade unions. These can help victims to seek redress80, support 
strategic  litigation81,  or  seek  collective  redress82,  particularly  as  EU  law  also  prohibits 
discrimination when there is no identifiable individual victim83.  

76 Proposal for a Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of measures and cooperation 
in matters relating to the protection of adults, COM(2023) 280. 
77  Proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation  on  jurisdiction,  applicable  law,  recognition  of  decisions  and  acceptance  of 
authentic  instruments  in  matters  of  parenthood  and  on  the  creation  of  a  European  Certificate  of  Parenthood, 
COM/2022/695. 
78  Council  Directive  79/7/EEC;  Council  Directive  2000/43/EC,  OJ  L  180,  19.07.2000,  p.  22;  Council  Directive 
2000/78/EC,  OJ  L  303,  2.12.2000,  p.  16–22;  Council  Directive  2004/113/EC,  OJ  L  373,  21.12.2004,  p.  37–43; 
Directive 2006/54/EC, OJ L 204, 26.7.2006, p. 23–36; Directive 2010/41/EU, OJ L 180, 15.7.2010, p. 1–6. 
79 Directive (EU) 2023/970, OJ L 132, 17.5.2023, p. 21-44. The evaluation of EU equal pay provisions conducted in 
2020 concluded that the right to equal pay between women and men for the same work or work of equal value is not 
adequately  applied  nor  enforced  in  practice  and  that  pay  transparency  is  lacking  in  many  Member  States, 
SWD(2020)50. 
80 Especially when they have legal standing, meaning that they have the  right or ability to bring a legal action to a 
court of law or to appear in a court. 
81 Strategic litigation refers to the use of litigation strategies to elicit social, legal or policy change and is often carried 
out by civil society organisations and/or lawyers. 
82  Commission  Recommendation  2013/396/EU  on  common  principles  for  injunctive  and  compensatory  collective 
redress  mechanisms  in  the  Member  States  concerning  violations  of  rights  granted  under  Union  Law  (OJ  L  201, 
26.7.2013, p. 60). 
83 Organisations acting in the public interest on their own behalf may bring actio popularis claims without a specific 
victim to support or represent. Judgment of 10 July 2008, C-54/07, Feryn, EU:C:2008:397, para. 15.  

10 

 
 
 
Following the equality directives, Member States have to provide for effective, proportionate and 
dissuasive penalties in cases of discrimination, such as a fine, compensation, an injunction for the 
wrongdoer  to  perform  or  refrain  from  certain  action,  publicising  the  wrongdoing,  requiring  an 
apology or imposing criminal sanctions84.  

New  legislative  proposals  aim  to  strengthen  the  role  of  equality  bodies85,  in  particular  their 
independence, resources and powers, so they can combat discrimination more effectively. Equality 
bodies are essential in assisting victims of discrimination and making sure that EU law on non-
discrimination  is  implemented.  Equality  bodies  would  be  mandated  to  receive  complaints  of 
discrimination, investigate, advise victims, offer alternative dispute resolution, issue opinions or 
decisions and act in court proceedings as experts, on behalf or in support of one or several victims, 
or in their own name86. 

The  EU  is  also  a  party  to  the  United  Nations  Convention  on  the  Rights  of  Persons  with 
Disabilities, which lays down the obligation to ensure effective access to justice for persons with 
disabilities on an equal basis with others87, and has adopted the European Accessibility Act88. 

The European Accessibility Act is complemented by the Web Accessibility Directive (WAD)89, 
which requires websites and mobile applications of public sector bodies, including judicial bodies, 
to be accessible to persons with disabilities and older people.  

Hate speech and hate crime violate the victims’ fundamental rights to dignity and to equality. To 
contribute to the effective legal protection of victims of hate speech and hate crime, the Council 
Framework  Decision  on  combating  racism  and  xenophobia90  obliges  Member  States  to 
criminalise  the  public  incitement  to  violence  and  hatred  on  grounds  of  race,  colour,  religion, 
descent, national or ethnic origin, and to duly take into account racist motives when sentencing 

84 Commission report on the application of the Racial Equality Directive and the Employment Equality Directive, 
COM (2021)139, observed difficulties in the implementation of the provision on sanctions in discrimination cases. 
Also the ‘Study to support the preparation of an EU initiative to address possible gaps in the legal protection against 
discrimination on grounds of racial or ethnic origin’ identified potential ‘gaps’ related to the implementation of the 
requirements on sanctions. The Commission will launch a study to support the Member States in the closer monitoring 
of the application of effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions. 
85 COM/2022/688 final and COM/2022/689 final. 
86https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2023/06/12/standards-for-equality-bodies-council-agrees-
its-positions/.  
87 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Article 13.  
88 Directive (EU) 2019/882, OJ L 151, 7.6.2019, p. 70–115, which sets out EU-wide accessibility requirements for 
certain  products  and  services.  These  requirements  are  referenced  in  the  proposal  to  amend  the  Victims’  Rights 
Directive  to  ensure  that  the  electronic  means  of  communication  to  be  used  in  judicial  proceedings,  as  well  as 
procedures,  support  services  and  protection  measures,  are  accessible  for  persons  with  disabilities.  Proposal  for  a 
directive amending Directive 2012/29/EU, Article 26c. 
89 Directive (EU) 2016/2102. 
90 Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA. 

11 

 
 
 
perpetrators of criminal acts91. National authorities must investigate, prosecute, and try cases of 
alleged hate-motivated crime or speech. Moreover, the Commission proposed in 202192 to add 
hate speech and hate crime to the areas of ‘EU crimes’ laid down in Article 83(1) TFEU. Upon 
the adoption of the decision by the Council, the Commission would have the possibility to propose 
legislation to ensure a robust EU level criminal law response to hate speech and hate crime on 
other grounds than racism and xenophobia. 

2.7.  Environmental protection 

In environmental protection, access to justice has been significantly strengthened93 by the amended 
Aarhus  Regulation94,  which  enables  environmental  organisations  and  other  members  of  the 
public  to  request  EU  institutions  to  ensure  that  their  decisions  comply  with  EU  environmental 
law95. Environmental organisations have already used this avenue by asking for a review relating 
to  pesticides,  fisheries,  taxonomy,  national  climate  and  energy  plans,  renewable  energy,  and 
agricultural plans under the Common Agricultural Policy96.  

The Commission has also published guidance on access to justice in environmental matters97 and 
e-Justice  fact  sheets98  on  the  applicable  rules  in  each  Member  State99,  and  mapped  how  legal 

91 The Commission monitors the transposition and implementation of this instrument by the Member States. It also 
works  together  with  national  law  enforcement  and  judicial  authorities  to  enhance  their  capacity  to  recognise, 
investigate and prosecute hate crimes or hate speech and support victims. The EU High Level Group on combating 
hate speech and hate crime developed relevant guidance and standards in collaboration with the EU Agency for Law 
Enforcement Training (CEPOL), the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) as well 
as the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). 
92 COM/2021/777. 
93 Following the findings of the Aarhus Compliance Committee in case ACCC/C/2008/32 against the EU, the scope 
of  application  of  the  Aarhus  Regulation  was  extended  and  aligned  with  the  Convention  and  its  Article  9.  The 
Compliance Committee found that the EU failed to comply with Article 9, paras 3 and 4, with regard to access to 
justice  by  members  of  the  public  because  neither  the  Aarhus  Regulation,  nor  the  jurisprudence  of  the  CJEU 
implemented or complied with the obligations arising under those paragraphs. 
94 Regulation (EU) 2021/1767. In 2022, the first Special Rapporteur for environmental defenders was elected to protect 
any person experiencing, or at imminent threat of, penalisation, persecution, or harassment for seeking to exercise 
their rights under the Convention. 
95 This can be done by requesting an internal review from the EU institution or body that adopted the administrative 
act or, in the case of an alleged administrative omission, should have adopted such an act, on the grounds that such an 
act  or  omission  contravenes  environmental  law.  The  same  applicants  which  made  the  request  for  internal  review 
pursuant to Article 10 of the Aarhus Regulation may institute proceedings before the Court of Justice once the decision 
of the Union’s institution on the internal review is made known to them. 
96 Regulation (EU) 2021/2116, OJ L 435, 6.12.2021, p. 187, Article 59(7) requires Member States to set up a complaint 
mechanism for the programming period 2023-2027 and ensure the effective examination of complaints within the 
scope of common agricultural policy strategic plans.  
97 Commission communication on improving access to justice in environmental matters in the EU and its Member 
States, COM/2020/643. 
98 https://e-justice.europa.eu/300/EN/access_to_justice_in_environmental_matters. 
99  The  Communication  on  Environmental  Implementation  Review  2022,  Turning  the  tide  through  environmental 
compliance. (COM/2022/438) found that ‘(…) there is still room for improvement in most Member States in terms of 
improving the public’s access to courts in order to challenge decisions, acts or omissions, particularly in the areas of 
planning relating to water, nature and/or air quality.’. 

12 

 
 
 
protection is provided in each Member State’s legislation implementing the Aarhus Convention100. 

Furthermore, a  proposal for an environmental crime directive101 provides for assistance and 
support to people who report environmental crimes. The proposals for an industrial emissions 
directive102,  a  directive  on  air  quality103  and  a  directive  on  waste104  would  grant  access  to 
compensation for health problems caused by breaches of the relevant provisions. The proposals on 
air quality, waste, soil monitoring105, nature restoration106 and the green claims directive107 would 
likewise  strengthen  the  right  to  an  effective  remedy  by  introducing  the  right  to  seize  judicial 
remedies whenever there is a breach of the relevant provisions of EU law108. 

2.8.  Consumer rights and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms 

A collective redress mechanism109 enables designated consumer organisations and public bodies 
to launch representative actions before national courts, including cross-border actions concerning 
several Member States, on behalf of groups of consumers. These collective actions can seek to 
stop illegal practices and to claim redress, such as compensation, replacement, or repair. An online 
tool  moreover  facilitates  cooperation  between  Member  States,  judges  and  consumer  interest 
representatives  in  the  enforcement  of  EU  consumer  rights110.  The  Unfair  Contract  Terms 
Directive111 also  requires  consumers to  be granted  effective remedies against  the use of unfair 
contract terms by traders.  

100 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/law-and-governance/environmental-implementation-review_en. 
Additional 
provisions  on  access  to  justice  are  included  in  the  Deforestation-free  products  Regulation  (Regulation  (EU) 
2023/1115, OJ L 150, 9.6.2023). 
101  Proposal  for  a  Directive  on  the  protection  of  the  environment  through  criminal  law  and  replacing  Directive 
2008/99/EC, 15.12.2021 COM(2021) 851. 
102 Directive 2010/75/EU, OJ L 334 17.12.2010, p. 17. For the revised framework, see COM/2022/156 final/3. 
103 Proposal for a Directive on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (recast), COM/2022/542 
104 Proposal for a Directive concerning Urban Wastewater Treatment (recast), 26.10.2022, COM(2022)541. 
105 Proposal for a Directive on Soil Monitoring and Resilience (Soil Monitoring Law), 5.7.2023, COM/2023/416.  
106 Proposal for a Regulation on nature restoration, 22.6.2022, COM (2022)304.  
107  Proposal for  a  Directive  on substantiation  and  communication  of  explicit  environmental  claims  (Green  Claims 
Directive), COM(2023)166. 
108 Based on the joint interpretation of the Aarhus Convention and Article 47 of the Charter, the Court of Justice in a 
recent ruling confirmed that an environmental association, authorised to bring legal proceedings in line with national 
law, should be able to challenge before a national court an administrative decision granting or amending EC type-
approval which may be contrary to Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and 
commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information. Judgment of 
08 November 2022, Deutsche Umwelthilfe (Réception des véhicules à moteur), C-873/19,EU:C:2022:857.  
109 Directive 
p. 
25  November 
https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/consumer-protection-law/representative-actions-directive_en. 
Directive (EU) 2019/2161, OJ L 328, 18.12.2019, p. 7–28. Directive 2013/11/EU, OJ L 165, 18.6.2013, p. 63. 
110 https://representative-actions-collaboration.ec.europa.eu/.  
111 Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29). Proposal 
for a directive on consumer credits, COM/2021/347, also ensures that consumers are not discriminated against when 
requesting, concluding or holding a credit agreement. 

2020,  OJ  L 

1–27, 
Also 

2020/1828 

4.12.2020, 

(EU) 

409, 

of 

13 

 
 
 
Out-of-court dispute resolution for consumers will also be made quicker and easier by the recent 
proposal on amending the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Directive112, which would 
improve the availability of personalised support to consumers, especially vulnerable ones. Contact 
points in the Member States can facilitate communication between consumers and traders, assist 
with the ADR process, and provide information on consumer rights and redress. 

In addition, SOLVIT, an EU problem-solving network for businesses and consumers provides an 
alternative approach to solving disputes without the need to consult a lawyer or go to court113. In 
transport, the initiative ‘Better protection for passengers and their rights’ seeks to ensure better 
information to passengers about their rights, a more effective complaint-handling system, better 
enforcement  of  passenger  rights  as  well  as  the  extension  of  passenger  rights  to  multi-modal 
journeys (when a passenger uses different transport modes during the same journey)114. 

2.9.  Online content regulation and data protection 

The continuous developments in digitalisation highlight the importance of ensuring effective legal 
protection in connection with online activities. On online content moderation, the Digital Services 
Act (DSA)115 provides redress for recipients of online intermediary services. The DSA establishes 
a notice and action mechanism that enables users to signal and request to take down illegal content. 
It requires online platforms to establish an internal complaint-handling system for users to lodge 
complaints electronically and free of charge, and an out-of-court dispute settlement mechanism116. 
It  also establishes a right to complain against service providers in the Member State where the 
recipient  of  the  service  is  located  or  established.  Users  can  mandate  a  body,  organisation  or 
association to exercise this right on their behalf. Users can seek compensation from providers of 

112 Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on amending Directive 2013/11/EU, as well 
as  Directives  (EU)  2015/2302,  (EU)  2019/2161  and  (EU)  2020/1828,  COM(2023)  649.  According  to  the  2023 
Consumer scoreboard, a quarter of consumers experienced a problem worthy of complaint but a third of them did not 
launch a complain due to lengthy procedure times, small amounts involved, or low confidence in a satisfactory solution 
to the problem. 
113  Commission  Staff  Working Document,  ‘SOLVIT’s  Helping  Hand  in  the  Single  Market:  celebrating  20  years’, 
SWD(2022) 325. National SOLVIT centres are well-placed to address matters of Charter compliance. To assist them 
with this role, the Commission intends to provide in 2024 tailored training for SOLVIT Centres on the Charter. 
114 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13290-Travel-better-protection-for-
passengers-and-their-rights. 
115 Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act), OJ L 277, 27.10.2022, p. 1–
102. In the impact assessment, ensuring fair governance and empowering users to exert their rights was considered 
one of DSA’s biggest impacts. All three regulatory options included a redress mechanism in two steps: obligation to 
offer the possibility to make and to process complaints by the service providers, and availability of out of court dispute 
settlement, expected to absorb escalated issues and to resolve them in a faster and less resource intensive manner than 
court proceedings. Users would always be able to appeal to courts, in line with national law. Enhanced transparency 
provisions, aimed at making users aware of policies applied to hosted content, goods, or services, and the provision 
of  information  to  users  on  corrective  action  taken  against  them,  were  likewise  considered  essential  elements  of 
effective remedies. All policy options also sanctioned systematic failure from service providers to provide redress. 
Enhanced supervisory powers for authorities regarding very large online platforms, where users’ rights can be most 
severely affected, were considered to additionally support users’ right to effective remedy. 
116 See Paper on the DSA’s out-of-court dispute settlement mechanism. Already the so-called “Platform-to-Business 
(P2B)” provided for redress for business users of online service providers: Regulation (EU) 2019/1150, OJ L 186, 
11.7.2019, p. 57–79. 

14 

 
 
 
intermediary services for any damage or loss suffered due to an infringement by those providers 
of their obligations under the DSA. The e-Commerce Directive117 contains procedural guarantees 
for out-of-court dispute settlement and judicial remedies as regards information society services. 

The Terrorist Content Online Regulation118 requires hosting service providers to inform content 
providers if their content is removed or access blocked following a removal order sent by a national 
competent  authority.  Hosting  service  providers  are  required  to  establish  effective  complaint 
mechanisms for users whose content has been removed or access blocked in the EU.  

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)119 gives data subjects the right to complain 
against a data controller or processor to the national supervisory authority or a competent court, if 
they think their personal data have been processed in breach of GDPR rules. Data subjects can also 
mandate a non-profit body, organisation or association to complain on their behalf, and they have 
a  right  to  receive  compensation  for  material  or  immaterial  damage  caused  by  a  violation.  The 
GDPR grants national supervisory authorities robust powers to investigate breaches and undertake 
corrective measures, including by imposing administrative fines.  

Without  prejudice  to  the  powers  of  those  supervisory  authorities  and  building  on  the  rights 
safeguarded under the GDPR, the proposal for a European Health Data Space120 creates the 
right to complain to digital health authorities, public bodies to be set up by Member States. 

2.10.  Asylum and migration  

EU law on asylum and migration provides a range of safeguards to ensure legal protection of 
those arriving in  the EU seeking  asylum or residence status.  Within  the scope of the Common 
European Asylum System, Directives and Regulations foresee the possibility for asylum applicants 
to challenge decisions taken by administrative authorities.  

Under  the  Asylum  Procedure  Directive121,  asylum  seekers  who  lodge  an  appeal  against  the 
rejection of their application generally have the right to remain on the Member State’s territory 
pending  the  outcome  of  the  appeal,  or  until  a  court  or  tribunal  has  ruled.  Member  States  must 
ensure applicants' right to an effective remedy against any decision taken on their application for 
international protection, as well as refusals to reopen the examination of a discontinued application 
and  decisions  to  withdraw  international  protection.  Additionally,  applicants  who  have  been 
recognised  as  eligible  for  subsidiary  protection  can  appeal  the  decision  that  considered  their 
application  unfounded  in  relation  to  the  refugee  status.  Finally,  procedural  guarantees  must  be 
guaranteed  for  appellants,  which  are  equivalent  to  those  applying  during  first  instance 

117 Directive 2000/31/EC, Articles 17 and 18. 
118 Regulation (EU) 2021/784, OJ L 172, 17.5.2021, p. 79–109. 
119 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 repealing Directive 95/46/EC, OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1–88. Complaints can be made to 
an independent national supervisory authority or to a court. Complaints can also be lodged on behalf of the data subject 
by a non-profit body, organisation or association, either on data subject’s request or based on national law. In case a 
data subject suffers a material or non-material damage, they have a right to receive compensation from the controller 
or processor. 
120 Proposal for a Regulation on the European health data space, COM(2022)197, 3.5.2022. 
121 Directive 2013/32/EU, OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, p. 60–95. 

15 

 
 
 
examinations, such as free legal assistance and representation provided by persons competent to 
provide them under national law. The Dublin III Regulation122 also provides applicants who have 
been  issued  a  transfer  decision  with  the  possibility  to  an  appeal  or  review,  ensuring  several 
procedural safeguards, including the right to remain in the territory of the Member State in which 
the applicant is present, the suspension of the transfer until the appeal or review is concluded and 
access to free legal and linguistic assistance throughout the appeal or review procedure. 

All directives on legal migration require Member States, whilst retaining a significant margin of 
discretion,  to  ensure  that  decisions  rejecting  an  application,  withdrawing  an  authorisation,  or 
rejecting the renewal of an authorisation are open to legal challenge or appeal123. In addition, the 
Return Directive enables non-EU nationals that are not entitled to stay in a Member State to seek 
review  of  the  decisions  concerning  their  return  before  a  competent  judicial  or  administrative 
authority, or a body composed of impartial and independent members124. Also, in the context of 
the  European  Integrated  Border  Management,  the  Commission  has  recommended  that 
‘Member States should develop and sustain operationally a national fundamental rights monitoring 
mechanism in relation to border management and return’, which should ‘oversee or contribute to 
existing redress mechanisms’”, such as incident reporting or complaints mechanisms125.  

In  the  employment  of  non-EU  nationals,  the  Employer  Sanctions  Directive126  grants  non-EU 
nationals that are not entitled to stay in a Member State the right to claim unpaid wages and file 
complaints  against  employers  in  cases  of  exploitation127.  The  Seasonal  Workers  Directive128 
includes  provisions  to  enable  seasonal  workers  from  non-EU  countries  to  submit  complaints 
against their employers. A proposal to extend this right to all non-EU workers is included in the 
proposal to revise the Single Permit Directive129. The Commission has also revised the Blue 

122 Regulation (EU) 604/2013, OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, p. 31–59.  
123 See: Council Directive 2003/86/EC, OJ L 251, 3.10.2003; and Directive (EU) 2016/801, OJ L 132, 21.5.2016. 
124 Directive 2008/115/EC, OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 98–107, Article 13. 
125 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council  establishing the multiannual 
strategic policy for European integrated border management, COM/2023/146, “Component 13(3)”.   
In  addition,  in  line  with  the  European  Border  and  Coast  Guard  Regulation  (2019/1896),  all  Frontex  Fundamental 
Rights  Monitors  have been recruited,  bringing  their  number  to  46  (EBCG  Regulation  calls  for  40  Monitors).  The 
EBCG Regulation allows Monitors the same access to all Frontex operations as is granted to all other Frontex deployed 
staff. 
126 Directive 2009/52/EC, OJ L 168, 30.6.2009, p. 24–32.  
127 Commission Communication on the application of Directive 2009/52/EC of 18 June 2009 providing for minimum 
standards on sanctions and measures against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals, COM(2021)592. 
Also  FRA,  2021,  Protecting  migrants  in  an  irregular  situation  from  labour  exploitation  –  Role  of  the  Employers 
Sanctions Directive. Together with the FRA, the Commission develops a training manual for labour inspectors on the 
protective elements of the directive. 
128 Directive 2014/36/EU of 26 February 2014 on the conditions of entry and stay of third-country nationals for the 
purpose of employment as seasonal workers, OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 375–390. The Commission has also launched a 
study to identify gaps and shortcomings in the protection of third-country seasonal workers in the EU. 
129 Proposal for a directive on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside 
and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing 
in a Member State (recast), COM/2022/655. 

16 

 
 
 
Card Directive to require that Member States should provide an effective judicial remedy for all 
negative residence and work permit decisions issued to highly qualified workers130.  

3.  Member States’ measures to provide for effective legal protection 

Member States have a duty to ensure that fundamental rights are applied in practice by the various 
actors in the Charter’s enforcement chain for the benefit of all131. In line with Article 19 TEU, they 
are in  charge of providing effective legal  protection within their territories, be it through  court 
systems or non-judicial bodies. All Member States who participated in the consultations preparing 
this report referred to a variety of judicial and non-judicial remedies being available. This chapter 
gives an overview of the recent developments referred to by several Member States. 

3.1.  Facilitating access to justice through digitalisation efforts 

Several Member States consider e-justice solutions as central in improving access to justice. They 
enable users to exercise their rights more quickly and easily132. Digital justice services are modern 
and  enable  the  greater  accessibility  and  even  customisation  of  justice  services,  as  well  as  their 
continuous provision during crises133.  
Many Member States make efforts to improve the digital accessibility of justice134. For example, 
in  Romania,  the  digitalisation  of  the  judicial  system  was  accelerated  during  the  COVID-19 
pandemic135.  Slovakia  is  funding  actions  to  advance  the  digitalisation  of  justice  under  the 
Recovery and Resilience Facility, which prepares the country for joining the eCodex system 136.  

Lack of digital skills, issues relating to the interoperability of IT systems, and digital safety are 
mentioned as the main challenges in this regard137. Sweden also considers that certain aspects of 

130 Directive (EU) 2021/1883, OJ L 382, 28.10.2021, p. 1–38, Article 11(3). 
131 Charter strategy, p. 19. 
132 See 2023 Justice Scoreboard, pp. 31-37. 
133 Contribution by Slovenia, p. 6-7 and contribution by Lithuania, pp. 7-8; Contribution by the Council of Europe. 
134 2023 Rule of Law Report, pp. 9-10, noting that initiatives to improve digitalisation have continued and Member 
States  are  taking  further  steps  in  this  respect.  The  digitalisation  of  the  justice  system  continues  to  be  overall  very 
advanced  in  Estonia,  Germany,  Latvia,  Poland,  Spain,  Slovakia,  Lithuania,  Hungary  and  Austria. 
Recommendations  to  continue  improving  the  digitalisation  of  justice  through  ongoing  efforts  have been  issued  to 
France, Italy and the Netherlands. As regards ongoing efforts, the consultation contribution by Luxembourg, p. 5, 
refers  to  certain  information being provided digitally  and a  paperless  justice  mechanism  in  administrative  matters 
entering into force after a pilot project on urgent procedures. Contribution by France, pp. 6-7, refers to strengthening 
networks, improving business software, and recruiting IT technicians. Contribution by Greece, pp. 10-12, refers to 
supporting  the  digital  recording  of  court  cases  in  the  first  instance  and  appeal  courts  of  Athens,  Piraeus,  and 
Thessaloniki. Also contribution by Croatia, pp. 7-8. Contribution by Finland, pp. 5-6. Contribution by Poland, pp. 
17-18. Contribution by Hungary, pp. 10-12. Contribution by Latvia, pp. 6-7. 
135 Contribution by Romania, p. 10. Also Contribution by the Council of Europe, referring to the situation in general. 
136 Contribution by Slovakia, p. 4, referring to the eCodex system, through which European Investigation Orders can 
be sent, requests for legal assistance made and electronic evidence shared. 
137 As regards challenges, the contribution by Romania, p. 10, refers to the simultaneous availability of four versions 
of the courts’ e-file, and the need to ensure compatibility, cyber security, the modernisation of the IT infrastructure at 
the local level; Contribution by Spain, p. 1, 5, refers to the need to safeguard sufficient digital skills. The 2023 Rule 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
digitalisation, such as video hearings, may not be suitable in all cases138.  

The consultations also show the various functions being set up under the e-justice initiatives139. In 
Germany, sending documents through an online tool is mandatory for lawyers, authorities, and 
public entities. Everyone else may use electronic legal transactions voluntarily140. In France, a 
mobile  application  helps  the  public  to  find  courts,  lawyers  and  notaries141.  However,  some 
respondents  to  the  Fundamental  Rights  Platform  survey  commented  on  the  complexity  and 
partial inaccessibility of digital tools, for example, due to increased costs for lawyers and clients, 
system failures or because availability has been limited to certified lawyers142. 

3.2.  Procedural rights 

As  noted  in  Chapter  2,  the  availability  of  sufficient  information  on  judicial  and  non-judicial 
remedies and on how these can be seized is central for facilitating everyone’s access to justice. In 
terms of informing the public about the judicial system and the available remedies, all Member 
States refer to information on a dedicated official website of the judicial administration or of a 
relevant ministry143. For instance, in Luxembourg, information on legal aid, court fees, procedural 
rights, and published judgments are made available online, together with contact forms or emails 
for inquiries by the public144. 

The replies to the Fundamental Rights Platform survey show that information is mostly provided 
to the parties to criminal proceedings (59 out of 115 respondents) and administrative proceedings 

of law report, p. 9, refers to the importance of ensuring that digital tools can be effectively used in practice, including 
through sufficient training. 
138 Contribution by Sweden, p. 6-7. 
139  In  addition  to  information  provision,  these  include  the  online  filing  of  police  reports  and  court  applications, 
administration of digital case files to view and download court documents and submit documents and court hearings 
in a videoconferencing format and audio-video recordings of proceedings. For instance, contribution by Belgium, p.p. 
6, 20, refers to the digital filing of documents, online court files, online solutions in the administration of vulnerable 
persons, and in finding an approved translator, interpreter or expert. In the future, it should also be possible to initiate 
legal proceedings digitally, file applications, communicate online with the courts and consult judgments digitally. 
140 Contribution by Germany, p. 8. 
141 Contribution by France, p. 7. 
142 Online consultation through the Fundamental Rights Platform, Question 3: Are digital tools used in your Member 
State to facilitate access to justice through judicial and non-judicial remedies? Also, the 2023 Rule of Law report, pp. 
9-10, referring to the further increase in the use of the electronic communication system and most remaining courts’ 
integration into a unified system in Croatia. Significant efficiency and quality issues related to digitalisation of justice 
nevertheless  remain.  In  Italy,  the  digitalisation  of  the  civil  justice  system  has  progressed  significantly,  while  the 
amended procedural rules allowing digitalisation in the criminal justice system remain to be fully implemented.  
143 Contribution by Slovakia, p. 4, referring to a dedicated Supreme Court website; Contribution by Bulgaria, p. 19, 
referring  to  an  e-Justice  portal  with  free,  direct  and  permanent  electronic  access;  Contribution  by  Spain,  p.  1,  5, 
referring  to  information  provided  online  on  the  justice  administration  and  the  judicial  and  non-judicial  remedies; 
Contribution by Austria, pp. 14-15. 
144  Contribution  by  Luxembourg.  p.  5.  The  Commission  has  however  issued  a  recommendation  to  Luxembourg 
related to the pending reform to make legal aid more accessible in the 2023 Rule of Law Report (p. 10).  

18 

 
 
 
(45), but markedly less to parties to civil proceedings (36) or people trying to access non-judicial 
remedies (31)145. 

Access to interpretation and translation is also essential to avoid creating barriers to access to 
justice for those with insufficient knowledge of the official  language of the country concerned. 
Several  Member  States  who  participated  in  the  consultations  provide  free  interpretation  and 
translation for suspected and accused persons in criminal proceedings146.  

The scope of this right however varies between the Member States. Beyond criminal proceedings, 
interpretation and translation of relevant court documents is available in certain Member States 
also in civil cases, or for civil parties to criminal proceedings147. Some Member States extend the 
availability  of  interpretation  and  translation  to  crime  victims148  and  to  administrative 
proceedings149. In this regard, some refer specifically to immigration cases150, or unaccompanied 
minors  and  their  guardians151.  In  Croatia,  the  Ombudswoman  has  recommended  that 
interpretation and translation be made available in several languages in cases concerning worker’s 
rights or international protection152.  

In  civil  cases,  Member  States  usually  require  non-native  speakers  to  cover  interpretation  and 
translation expenses themselves. Depending on the financial situation, it may be possible to cover 
these costs with legal aid, depending on the conditions set out in national legislation. Legal aid is 
generally available to cover the interpretation and translation costs of those without means153. In 
Finland,  a  preliminary  calculation  of  entitlement  and  applications  for  legal  aid  can  be  made 
through a legal aid case management system154.  

In  the  Fundamental  Rights  Platform  survey,  82  respondents  out  of  115  confirmed  that 
interpretation and translation services are the most-widely used measures to remove barriers for 

145 Online consultation through the Fundamental Rights Platform, Question 2: “In your experience, is information 
provided  in  practice  in  your  Member  State  on  available  remedies,  and  the  steps  to  be  taken  during  a  judicial 
process/when accessing non-judicial remedies?”. 
146 Contribution by Austria, p. 16; Contribution by Belgium, p. 28; Contribution by Croatia, p. 7; Contribution by 
Finland, p. 6-7; Contribution by France, p. 8; Contribution by Germany, p. 9; Contribution by Greece, pp. 12-14; 
Contribution  by  Hungary,  p.  12;  Contribution  by  Ireland,  p.  2;  Contribution  by  Latvia,  p.  7;  Contribution  by 
Lithuania,  pp.  8-9;  Contribution  by  Luxembourg,  p.  5;  Contribution  by  the  Netherlands,  p.3;  Contribution  by 
Poland,  p.  18;  Contribution by  Focal  point  of  Portugal, p.  6;  Contribution  by  Romania,  p.  11;  Contribution  by 
Sweden,  p.7;  Contribution  by  Slovakia,  pp.  4-5;  Contribution  by  Slovenia,  p.  7.  Nonetheless,  infringement 
proceedings are currently ongoing against four Member States for incorrect transposition of Directive 2010/64/EU. 
147Contribution by Greece, pp. 12-14. Contribution by France, pp. 3-4. Contribution by Belgium, p. 28. Consultation 
contribution by Finland, p. 6-7. 
148 Contribution by  France, pp. 3-4, referring to the right of a victim who does not understand French to have an 
interpreter and a translation of the information necessary for the exercise their rights. Victims are entitled to request 
translations or oral summaries of court hearings; Contribution by Austria, p. 16. 
149 Contribution by Hungary, pp. 12-13. 
150 Contribution by the Netherlands, p.3. 
151 Contribution by Croatia, p. 7. 
152 Contribution by the Ombudsperson of Croatia, p. 7. 
153 Contribution by Finland, p. 6-7 Contribution by Latvia, p. 7; Contribution by Belgium, p. 21.  
154 Contribution by Finland, pp. 5-6, also mentioning that lawyers, defence counsels, interpreters and translators can 
use the system to apply for state funds, submit invoices, and access remote services relating to legal aid.  

19 

 
 
 
people accessing judicial and non-judicial remedies in their Member States, followed by legal aid 
(79/115)155 . 

3.3.  Victims’ rights 

In the consultations conducted to inform this report, most Member States referred to new measures 
having been taken to protect victims of crime. For instance, in Romania, the targeted Crime Victim 
Support Services provide victim support services through a country-wide network of 47 offices156. 
Two  of  Slovenia’s  largest  first  instance  courts  have  specialised  victim  support  departments 
bringing  together  judges  and  victims  (of  mostly  gender-based  or  domestic  violence)  to  avoid 
unnecessary contact with the alleged perpetrator and to decide on protection measures157. 

Austria  provides  free  of  charge  psychosocial  support  to  victims  during  criminal  and  civil 
proceedings158.  In  Germany,  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  requires  courts  to  provide 
psychosocial  assistance.  Victims  of  severe  violent  or  sexual  crime  can  also  request  that  a 
psychosocial assistant is appointed to their case, free of charge159. In Sweden, counsel can also be 
appointed free of charge to protect the victims’ interests and bring a claim of damages in criminal 
cases160. In Greece, psychosocial support is only available to victims of human trafficking161. In 
Croatia, the Ombudswoman has recommended targeted training sessions on victims’ rights and 
the establishment of dedicated departments for victims’ and witness’ support in all courts162. 

In addition, almost a third of the respondents of the Fundamental Rights Platform survey (31/115) 
agreed that fast-track proceedings are available to vulnerable parties163. In Cyprus and Germany, 
for  instance,  cases  involving  sexual  violence  or  children  can  be  processed  as  a  priority164.  In 

155 Online consultation through the Fundamental Rights Platform, see Question 1. 
156 Contribution by Romania, p. 11. In Lithuania, a cooperation procedure between the first responders and victim 
support providers was established in 2021. Contribution by Lithuania, p. 9. 
157 Contribution by Slovenia, p. 10. 
158 Contribution by Austria, pp. 1-2. 
159 Contribution by Germany, pp. 12-13. 
160 Contribution by Sweden, pp. 8-15. 
161 Contribution by Greece, pp. 15-16. 
162 Contribution by Croatia, pp. 12-15. Also ENNHRI, p. 3, refers to gaps identified by NHRIs in ensuring the rights 
of victims of crime (regarding victims of hate crime and domestic violence in Germany, the right to compensation 
for trafficking victims in Luxembourg, and non-national victims in Slovenia).  
163 Online consultation through the Fundamental Rights Platform, Question 1: Which measures are used in your 
Member  State  to  remove  language/cultural/physical/financial/other  barriers  for  people  accessing  judicial  and  non-
judicial remedies? a. Interpretation and translation services (82 positive answers); b. Measures to facilitate access by 
persons with disabilities, such as measures relating to the physical accessibility of court houses (60); c. Legal aid (79); 
d. Arrangements to refer vulnerable victims, such as victims of domestic or gender-based violence, to support services 
(65); e. Fast-track proceedings available for vulnerable parties, such as in cases involving sexual violence or children 
(31); f. Other measures (8). 
164 Contribution by the  Focal point of Cyprus, p. 3. Contribution by  Germany, pp. 4, 14, 18, referring  also to a 
simplified procedure for accused persons who are juvenile. According to the Contribution by Lithuania, p. 10., pre-
trial investigation can be prioritised when the suspect or victim is a juvenile or when the suspect is in custody.  In 
Latvia, criminal proceedings involving violence or sexual violence, including against children, are processed as a 
priority. Contribution by Latvia, p. 7. 

20 

 
 
 
Belgium, the Judicial Code provides for an accelerated measure in cases concerning cross-border 
parental responsibility and child protection (such as in international child abduction cases)165. 

As regards tackling gender-based and domestic violence, some Member States have recently 
enabled law enforcement authorities to share victims’ contact information with a support centre, 
which contacts the victim on its own initiative to offer support after the reporting of the crime166. 
Some  efforts  to  ensure  the  availability  of  targeted  support  have  also  been  made.  Finland  for 
instance has established a network of 24 support centres for victims of sexual violence across the 
country167. In Sweden, special care units are available for victims of sexual violence and abuse168. 
In  Croatia,  the  Office  for  Gender  Equality  has  produced  guidelines  for  law  enforcement  and 
judicial professionals on the processing of sexual crime169. 

As  noted  in  the  Charter  strategy  and  the  2022  Charter  report,  also  civil  society  organisations 
(CSOs) are central partners in the Charter’s enforcement chain. In the consultations conducted for 
the Charter strategy, 80% of the responding CSs confirmed that people turn to them for information 
concerning  their  rights.  An  overwhelming  majority  (85%)  of  CSOs  also  carried  out  awareness 
raising activities on fundamental rights170. In the consultations conducted to inform this report, 
several Member States referred to the central contribution of CSOs in providing legal and other 
assistance to those in need171. For instance, in Germany, authorities have cooperation agreements 
in place with counselling centres run by CSOs, which provide support in cases of human trafficking 
in nearly all federal states172.  

The provision of regular, targeted training sessions to legal professionals 

In most Member States, judicial training is available on how to communicate with various victim 
groups, or persons from different cultural, religious, racial, ethnic, or linguistic backgrounds, as 
well as on protection measures in particular in cases of violence against women and domestic 
violence,  or  gender-sensitive  practices  in  judicial  proceedings173.  For  instance,  in  Hungary, 

165 Contribution by Belgium, p. 26. Consultation contribution by the Netherlands, p.5. refers to a project introducing 
an abridged legal procedure to contribute to reducing the number of conflicts between parents during divorces and 
preventing harm to children. 
166 Contribution by Lithuania, p. 9; Contribution by Austria, p. 20; Contribution by Belgium, pp. 24-25; Contribution 
by Slovakia, pp. 4-5. 
167 Contribution by Finland, p. 7. 
168 Contribution by Sweden, pp. 9-10. Also, contribution by Portugal, pp. 6-7, referring to support offices for victims 
of gender-based have been or are being established in eight cities. 
169 Contribution by Croatia, pp. 5-6, referring to the Procedure in Cases of Sexual Violence. 
170 Charter strategy pp. 10, 18, referring to the supporting stakeholder consultations analysis, p. 31. 
171 16 Member States provide as a specific arrangement for access to justice of persons at risk of discrimination and 
older  person  the  right  for  civil  society  organisations  and/or  equality  bodies  to  initiate  or  participate  in  judicial 
proceedings on behalf or in support of one or several victims. 2023 Justice Scoreboard, p 25. Various CSO in Slovenia 
work to combat discrimination and support victims, including from vulnerable groups. They provide legal advice, 
advocacy,  and  assistance  in  pursuing  remedies  for  discrimination  cases.  Contribution  by  Slovenia,  pp.  3-4. 
Contribution by Focal Point of Slovenia, p. 3. 
172 Contribution by Germany, pp. 12-13.  
173 2023 Justice Scoreboard, pp. 24-25, 31. 

21 

 
 
 
 
training  on  responding  to  the  needs  of  vulnerable  groups  are  led  by  psychologists  under  the 
annual  court  training  programme174.  In  Spain,  new  legislation  requires  bar  associations  to 
provide training on children’s rights in the light of the Convention on the Rights of the Child 
and violence against children175. In Sweden, prosecutors who handle cases involving children 
receive targeted training and represent the child during proceedings176. Moreover, some Member 
States  referred  to  efforts  made  to  improve  effective  legal  protection  of  victims  by  providing 
targeted training to other relevant professionals. Little information was however given on when 
relevant training is provided (when taking up functions, or continuous on the job training), and 
whether it is compulsory. Training may also only be available in the largest courts or cover one 
vulnerable group or one type of crime. 

3.4.  Child-friendly justice 

The  consultations  show  that  Member  States  are  increasingly  taking  dedicated  measures  to 
guarantee legal  protection in  a  manner that is  specifically  adapted to  children177. Recent  child-
friendly  justice  initiatives  have  focused  on  the  establishment  of  dedicated  hearing  rooms  for 
children,  the  availability  of  legal  aid  and  presentation  to  children,  as  well  as  the  provision  of 
specialised training to justice professionals to ensure that child suspects, accused persons, victims 
and  witnesses  can  effectively  participate  in  proceedings  in  a  manner  corresponding  to  their 
maturity. In most Member States178, courts are required to inform a child about the proceedings 
and explain their consequences in a manner adapted to the child179.  

Some  Member  States  have  also  established  specialised  courts  or  prosecutor’s  roles  for  cases 
involving children. In 2021, Cyprus amended legislation to prioritise non-judicial procedures for 

174 Contribution by Hungary, pp. 16-17, referring to 932 judges, 601 assistant judges and 102 trainees participating. 
The  vulnerable  groups  covered  include  children,  older  people,  persons  with  disabilities,  and  victims  of  domestic 
violence  and  human  trafficking.  Also,  contribution  by  Lithuania,  pp.  8,  13,  referring  to  training  and  targeted 
recommendations made available for advocates who provide legal assistance covered by legal aid; Contribution by 
Bulgaria, p. 19, referring to the National Institute of Justice of Bulgaria organising training for magistrates on effective 
protection against discrimination. 
175 Contribution by Spain, pp. 2,4, also referring to training to professionals at the victims of crime assistance offices, 
on the  needs of persons with disabilities, which includes a session on accessibility. Contribution by  France, p. 9, 
referring to the provision of inter-regional training on receiving persons with disabilities; Contribution by Lithuania, 
pp. 8, 13, referring to training for judges on communicating with persons with disabilities.  
176 Contribution by Sweden, pp. 11-12. 
177 Referring to justice that is accessible, age appropriate, speedy, diligent, adapted to and focused on the needs and 
rights of the child. See: Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on child friendly justice 
(adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 17 November 2010 at the 1098th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies); 
17/11/2010. 
178 2023 Justice Scoreboard, Figure 32, p. 28. 
179 Contribution by Slovakia, p. 7; Contribution by Luxembourg, p. 8. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
juvenile offenders and established specialised children’s courts180. In Germany, youth courts and 
prosecutors  ensure  that  cases  involving  juveniles  are  dealt  with  by  legal  professionals  with 
appropriate education and training181.  

Initiatives to improve children’s opportunities to report a crime have also been taken in the recent 
years. In Spain, early detection measures to identify violence against children have been put in 
place, including a reinforced obligation for those in contact with children to report suspected abuse. 
The  role  of  a  Welfare  and  Protection  Coordinator  has  furthermore  been  made  compulsory  in 
schools182. 

Similarly,  many  Member  States  have  strengthened  the  ability  of  children  to  report  crime  and 
participate  in  legal  proceedings  assisted  by  a  legal  representative  appointed  by  a  court183. 
Assistance from a neutral third party is particularly important when the suspect or accused is the 
parent.  In  Austria,  a  child  advocate  is  appointed  to  enable  children  to  participate  without 
burdening them and to reduce loyalty conflicts184. Similarly, in the Netherlands, a child curator 
can  be  appointed  under  the  Civil  Code  to  safeguard  the  child’s  best  interest  or  at  the  child’s 
request185.  

Several Member States refer to  providing dedicated children’s rooms in  courts186. In Slovakia, 
family  rooms  are  being  set  up  to  facilitate  interviews  with  children  or  other  vulnerable 
individuals187.  In  France,  interviews  with  child  victims  can  be  carried  out  by  investigators  in 
civilian uniforms in a room equipped with toys, microphones and cameras. A child psychiatrist 
monitors and interprets the child's behaviour from a control room188.  

Member States are also increasingly taking children’s needs into account when organising victim 
support services. In Spain, criminal proceedings involving violence against a child or adolescent, 

180 Contribution by the Focal point of Cyprus, p. 4, noting that the detention of children is the sanction of last resort. 
The children’s courts may also impose alternative  punishments, such as reprimands, fines, community service  for 
children over 16 years, referral to a substance abuse treatment center, etc. 
181 Contribution by Germany, pp. 6, 14, 16, referring to the Youth Courts Act. The OHCHR in its contribution, pp. 
5-6,  however  refers  to  the  Concluding  observations  of  the  UN  Committee  on  the  Rights  of  the  Child,  where  the 
Committee recommended Germany to ensure that all children, including children under 14 years of age, can express 
their opinions and be heard in decisions affecting them, and to establish legal standards for ensuring that proceedings 
are child-friendly The Committee also noted with appreciation the measures taken to bring its child justice system in 
line  with  the  Convention,  including  through  the  transposition  into  national  law  of  Directive  (EU)  2016/800 
(CRC/C/DEU/CO/5-6, para. 17 (a)). 
182 Contribution by Spain, p. 3. 
183 2023 Justice Scoreboard, Figure 31, p. 28. 
184 Contribution by Austria, pp. 21-25; Contribution by France, p. 12, noting that children can be accompanied to 
court by their legal representative, an adult of their choice, or a certified victim support association. 
185  Contribution  by  the  Netherlands,  p.  7;  Contribution  by  Sweden,  p.  12,  referring  to  the  Act  on  Special 
Representatives for Children. Also Contribution by Finland, p. 9, referring to ongoing legislative review that contains 
proposed amendments to child trustee appointments. 
186 2023 Justice Scoreboard, Figure 31, p. 28. For example, in Luxembourg, children must be heard in a child-friendly 
setting, Consultation contribution by Luxembourg, p. 8.  
187 Contribution by Slovakia, p. 7.  
188 Contribution by France, p. 12, stating that interviews of children must take place in the presence of a psychologist, 
paediatrician, family member, ad hoc administrator, or a person mandated by the child judge. 

23 

 
 
 
the child victim must be referred to a Victims’ Assistance Office189. In partnership with the FRA, 
Romania  has  launched  a  project  to  ensure  accessible  criminal  justice  for  child  victims190. 
Similarly, in cooperation with UNICEF191, Poland has developed stand-by legal call services for 
children, including for refugee children from Ukraine192. 

In addition to these positive examples, however, some respondents to the consultation also referred 
to a lack of child-friendly information and age-appropriate accommodation to facilitate children’s 
participation  in  proceedings;  specialised  courts  or  legal  professionals;  and  protection  for 
unaccompanied  foreign  minors193.  Suggested  improvements  include  better  monitoring  of  the 
implementation  of  child-friendly  laws,  strengthening  children’s  right  to  file  complaints,  and 
providing protocols for judicial professionals handling cases involving children194.   

Migrant  children  face  particular  challenges  in  accessing  complaint  mechanisms195.  The  UN 
Committee  on  the  Rights  of  the  Child  highlighted  that  asylum-seeking,  refugee  and  migrant 
children, including undocumented and separated children, need free legal aid, interpretation and 
other  assistance  to  ensure  that  their  views  are  duly  taken  into  account  in  decisions  concerning 
them196. There also needs to be training and availability of lawyers, in particular for children living 
in  camps  and  reception  centres,  to  ensure  access  to  age  appropriate,  child-friendly  justice 
mechanisms and remedies to challenge all decisions related to their migration status197. 

189 Contribution by Spain, p. 4. 
190 Contribution by Romania, p. 13; Contribution by Focal Point of Portugal, pp. 10-12, referring to plans to equip 
117 buildings with child reception and hearing rooms.  
191 United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund, https://www.unicef.org/. 
192 Contribution by Poland, p. 27. 
193  Online  consultation  through  the  FRA’s  Fundamental  Rights  Platform,  Question  4:  “In  your  experience,  have 
arrangements been made in your Member State to facilitate access to justice by children through judicial and non-
judicial remedies?”. Contribution by ENNHRI, p. 3, similarly refers to gaps identified by NHRIs in the legal protection 
of all asylum-seekers and migrants in Belgium, Czechia, Greece and Latvia. 
194 Contribution by Focal Point of Slovenia, pp. 5-6. 
195 Contribution by ENNHRI, p. 3, referring to gaps identified by NHRIs in family law proceedings and proceedings 
involving children in Bulgaria, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, and Slovenia. 
196 Contribution by OHCHR, p. 4, referring to CRC/C/HRV/CO/5-6; pp. 17, 25, 41.  
197 Contribution by OHCHR, p. 6, referring to CRC/C/GRC/CO/4-6, para. 40 (f-g). Contribution by Greece, pp. 19-
20, referring to the entitlement to legal aid for child victims of sexual abuse, exploitation, and child pornography, as 
well as procedural safeguards for suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings. Also (CRC/C/CYP/CO/5-6, 
paras 19–20 and 37–38), where the Committee recommended Cyprus to ensure that the right of the child to be heard 
in  legal  proceedings  is  enshrined  in  legislation  and  implemented.  It  also  recommended  that  separated  and 
unaccompanied children are represented by competent lawyers in asylum proceedings, and that a formal procedure 
for the determination of the child’s best interest is established.  

24 

 
 
 
 
 
3.5.  Rights of victims of discrimination 

National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs), equality bodies and ombudspersons promote 
fundamental rights198 and are often the first points of contact with victims of discrimination 199.  
They provide guidance and free legal assistance to individuals who allegedly have experienced 
discrimination, monitor the application of equality and non-discrimination law and of the Charter, 
and  conduct  awareness-raising200.  They  may  also  investigate  discrimination  cases  and  conduct 
training activities201. In a third of Member States, equality bodies are mandated to take binding 
decisions  in  discrimination  cases202.  Most  NHRIs  and  equality  bodies  furthermore  have  legal 
standing to support or represent victims in court203. Some NHRIs are also mandated to undertake 
strategic  litigation  in  courts  and  intervene  before  constitutional  courts  to  challenge  the 
constitutionality of legal acts204.  

In 2022 and 2023, ENNHRI identified barriers to accessing justice for vulnerable groups in the 
EU,  including  for  people  with  low  income,  children,  women,  victims  of  domestic  violence, 
trafficking and labour exploitation, migrants and applicants for international protection, as well as 
ethnic minorities205. Underreporting is a major concern; victims are often reluctant to bring cases 
to court due to the cost of litigation, complexity of procedures and time constraints206.   

198 Charter strategy, pp. 11-12. 
199 Defined as public institutions established under the relevant Directives to combat discrimination based on race, 
ethnic origin and gender. In many Member States, equality bodies’ mandates also cover other prohibited grounds, 
such as age, disability, religion and belief, sexual orientation or other grounds. Contribution by Equinet, p. 1. 
200  Contribution  by  ENNHRI,  p.  4,  referring  to  awareness-raising  campaigns  on  access  to  justice  by  NHRIs  from 
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, 
Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain. 
201 Contribution by Equinet, pp. 1-3, 5, Contribution by ENNHRI, pp. 1-2, 5. On the powers of equality bodies to help 
victims of discrimination. Also 2023 Justice Scoreboard, Figure 19, reflecting which powers the equality bodies, or 
in certain cases other specific bodies, hold in each Member State to resolve cases of discrimination. These are, among 
others, offering the parties the possibility to seek an alternative resolution to their dispute (for example mediation or 
conciliation procedures), issuing binding decisions in discrimination cases, acting in court in cases of discrimination 
either on behalf of victims or in its own name, or submitting observations to the court as amicus curiae or expert in 
cases of discrimination. 
202 Contribution by Equinet, p. 4. 
203 Contribution by Equinet, p. 2, referring to its survey “Litigation powers of Equality Bodies”, 2023, according to 
which 34 out of the 47 surveyed equality bodies had some legal standing before courts. Out of them, 23 could act as 
amicus curiae (an expert third party permitted to assist the court by offering information or insight), 18 could bring 
anonymised complaints to courts with the victim’s consent, 13 were able to initiate actio popularis in their own name, 
and 8 could initiate collective complaints. 
204 Contribution by ENNHRI, p. 2. 
205 Contribution by ENNHRI, pp. 2-3, referring to ENNHRI’s State of the rule of law in the European Union 2022 and 
2023 reports. In line with the UN Paris Principles, NHRIs are also in charge of reporting and advising governments 
and relevant authorities on human rights. 
206  Contribution  by  Equinet,  p.  3,  referring  to  Vincenzi  Tudisco,  Emma  Lantschner,  Preventing  and  reacting  to 
discrimination through sanctions and remedies; and Marie Mercat-Bruns, A comparative study of collective redress 
in France, Norway and Romania: the challenges of strategic litigation. European Equality Law Review  – Issue 1 / 
2020,  p. 21; Equinet  2013,  p.  13.  Other  reasons  for not reporting  discrimination  may  include  doubt  that  there  are 
serious chances of success; unawareness of rights and/or of the existence of equality bodies; difficulties to provide 
evidence; uncertainty of the outcome of the case, the prospect of low levels of compensation and/or fear of retaliation; 
COM (2021)139.  

25 

 
 
 
Some Member State referred to recent measures having been taken to improve the accessibility of 
remedies207. For instance, in Bulgaria, regional offices for Protection against Discrimination have 
been established help public become better informed on protection and legal aid208.  

Certain  Member  States  have  established  collective  redress  mechanisms  in  the  field  of  anti-
discrimination.  For  instance,  in  France,  representative  trade  unions  and  anti-discrimination 
associations can bring group actions against discriminatory practices209. In Hungary, civil society 
and interest representation organisations may request an investigation into potential breaches of 
equal treatment210.  

Efforts to ensure effective legal protection for persons with disabilities 

Access  to  justice  also  means  the  accessibility  of  proceedings  for  persons  with  disabilities. 
Around  half  of  the  respondents  to  the  Fundamental  Rights  Platform  survey  reported  that 
measures to facilitate access to judicial and non-judicial remedies for persons with disabilities 
are  in  place  in  their  Member  State.  The  respondents  however  also  indicated  that  further 
improvements are needed211. 
A central element in this regard is the physical accessibility of buildings. In Slovenia, the Urban 
Planning Institute visited all judicial buildings for an accessibility analysis, which provides the 
basis for future investments and gives advice to persons with disabilities visiting the courts212.  
In several Member States however, court buildings are not fully accessible. In Germany, some 
federal states have enacted regulations on barrier-free access to continuously improve access, 
including  through elevators, accessible toilets, multi-sensory intercom  systems,  high  contrast 
walking  surfaces  or  step  markings,  tactile  signage,  and  induction  loop  systems213.  Belgium 
reports that while a significant number of public buildings have been adapted to the legislation 
on accessibility, not all courthouses comply with the rules. In many cases, this is due to building 
works needing to be aligned with the preservation of listed buildings214. In Poland, a project on 
ensuring  access  to  justice  for  persons  with  disabilities  includes  adaptations  and  construction 
work  in  35  court  buildings215.  In  Hungary,  accessibility  works  to  court  buildings  are  being 
financed through support from the EU216. In 2022 however, the UN Committee on the Rights of 
Persons with Disabilities noted with concern that barriers to the access to justice by persons with 

207 For other examples of good practices at national level, see ibid, page 6. 
208 Contribution by Bulgaria, p. 3, 17. Also Contribution by Spain, p. 5, referring to municipal justice offices assisting 
citizens in their relations with the administration of justice in general; Contribution by Luxembourg, p. 2, referring 
to the ‘Centre d’égalité de traitement’, which provides advice on victims’ rights, legislation, case law and remedies. 
209 Contribution by France, pp. 3-4. 
210 Contribution by Hungary, pp. 4-6. 
211 Online consultation through the Fundamental Rights Platform, Question 1 (60 positive responses out of 115). 
212 Contribution by Slovenia, pp. 8-9. 
213 Contribution by Germany, pp. 9-10. 
214 Contribution by Belgium, p. 21; Contribution by Focal point of Portugal, p. 6. 
215 Contribution by Poland, pp. 20-21. 
216 Contribution by Hungary, pp. 12-13. Also Contribution by Poland, pp. 20-21. 

26 

 
 
 
 
disabilities  continued  to  exist  due  to  various  reasons,  including  the  inaccessibility  of 
buildings217.  
Member  States  have  also  put  in  place  solutions  to  ensure  that  visually  impaired,  hearing 
impaired and low- or illiterate members of the public receive judicial information on an equal 
footing with others218. For instance, in Ireland, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal 
makes available free interpretation into Irish sign language upon request219. In Bulgaria, most 
courts use a speech synthesis software to translate court documents into natural speech220. The 
Supreme Court of  Spain recently required two judgments  to  be adapted to  an easy  reading 
format so that they can be understood by the persons with intellectual disabilities involved in 
the case221.  

3.6.  Consumer rights and alternative dispute resolution  

In consumer legislation, Member States refer to the availability of a mix of civil, criminal, and 
administrative  remedies  from  courts  and  consumer  protection  services222,  as  well  as  to  the 
important  role  of  consumer  associations  and  civil  society  organisations223.  For  instance,  in 
Germany, consumer organisations can file a model case against a trader to determine the core 
factual  or  legal  issues,  when  these  are  the  prerequisites  for  claims  of  several  consumers224.  In 
France, group actions are open to victims of the same harm225. In Latvia, an Economic Court has 
been  established  to  address  complex  commercial  disputes,  economic  and  financial  crimes,  and 
corruption cases226. 

217 Contribution by OHCHR, p. 6, referring to CRPD/C/HUN/CO/2-3, pp. 26-27. 
218  Contribution  by  Germany,  p.  9;  Contribution  by  Lithuania,  pp.  8-9;  Contribution  by  the  Netherlands,  p.3; 
Contribution by Croatia, pp. 11-12; Contribution by Hungary, pp. 12-13. 
219 Contribution by Ireland, p. 2. 
220 Contribution by Bulgaria, p. 11, mentioning that training on the software is provided to most court officials. 
221 The court referred to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and national legislation on 
equal treatment and non-discrimination, which require reasonable adjustments of the procedure to optimise the rights 
of participation and information of people with disabilities. The adaptation of the judicial language so that it could be 
understood was a requirement for the justice system. the need to inform the applicants of the judgment followed from 
the Victims’ Rights Directive. C.G.P.J - Judicial News (poderjudicial.es), Consultation contribution by Spain, p. 5. 
222 Contribution by Cyprus, p. 1, Contribution by Germany, p. 4, Contribution by Greece, pp. 5-6, Contribution by 
the Netherlands, p. 1. 2023 Justice Scoreboard, pp. 17-18. Also Contribution by the Council of Europe, referring to 
European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ): Promoting mediation to resolve administrative disputes 
in Council of Europe member states - December 2022. 
223 Contribution by Slovenia, p. 5. 
224 Contribution by Germany, pp. 18-19. 
225 Contribution by France, pp. 3-4; Contribution by Luxembourg, p. 3, noting that a draft bill is expected to introduce 
a collective recourse mechanism to allow a large number of consumers to jointly file a case if they have been harmed 
in  the  same  or  similar  way;  Contribution  by  Sweden,  p.  2,  referring  to  the  right  of  a  consumer  group  to  file 
representative actions against a trader. 
226 Contribution by Latvia, pp. 1-2. 

27 

 
 
 
 
Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (ADR) have been established or improved through 
recent  legislative  reforms  in  some  Member  States227.  ADR  methods  are  promoted  through 
dedicated  incentives,  such  as  by  providing  information  on  ADR  on  government  websites  or  in 
media campaigns, providing partial or full legal aid for costs of ADR, and using technology to 
facilitate  the  submission  and  resolution  of  disputes228.  In  Luxembourg,  in  criminal  cases,  the 
Restorative Justice Service seeks to initiate a dialogue between the victim and the perpetrator on 
all  material  and  emotional  consequences  of  the  offence229.  In  Sweden,  while  judges  have 
procedural discretion on ADR, seeking an amicable dispute settlement is a mandatory unless it is 
considered inappropriate for the case230.  As of March 2023, in the Netherlands, the first two and 
a half hours of mediation are free of charge for litigants who are ineligible for legal aid while those 
eligible for legal aid receive mediation free of charge231.  

Assessing impacts of national legislation on effective legal protection232  

In the Charter strategy, the Commission invited Member States to use impact assessments to 
ensure that initiatives implementing EU law comply with the Charter233. While some examples 
exist on how the fundamental rights impacts of legislative proposals relating to effective legal 
protection have been assessed, in most cases, the need to take fundamental rights into account 
has been underlined by actors other than Member State governments. 

In Finland, the Parliamentary Constitutional Law Committee noted that since the bill amending 
the  Aliens  Act  implemented  EU  law,  compliance  with  fundamental  rights  required  several 
elements of the bill to be defined in more detail. It also drew attention to the need to ensure the 
compatibility of the bill with EU law from the perspective of applying the border procedure to 
minors234.  In  Lithuania,  amendments  were  proposed  to  national  legislation  implementing 

227  Contribution  by  Luxembourg,  p.  2,  Contribution  by  Germany,  p.  4,  Contribution  by  Belgium,  pp.  6-7, 
Contribution by Lithuania, pp. 3-5, Contribution by the focal point of Portugal, pp. 1-4, Contribution by Finland, 
pp. 1-3, Contribution by Austria, pp. 8, 12-13. 
228 2023 Justice Scoreboard, p. 24. 
229 Contribution of Luxembourg, p. 2. In civil matters, mediation is available at the “Centre de Médiation”, which 
appoints a mediator in line with the dispute and the parties’ wishes. 
230 2023 Justice Scoreboard, p. 24. Similarly, in Slovenia, ADR in bodies other than courts is not widely used, but its 
importance is growing. Courts present ADR as an option, except when the judge considers it to be inappropriate. 
Consultation contribution by Slovenia, p. 3. The Arbitration Act enables civil parties to mandate an arbitration board 
to deliver a binding decision equivalent to that of a court. Mediation is regulated under the Mediation in Civil and 
Commercial  Matters  Act.  The  Act  on  Alternative  Dispute  Resolution  in  Judicial  Matters  enhances  the  use  of 
alternative dispute resolution in corporate, labour, family, and other civil law-related relationships regarding claims 
which may be freely disposed of and settled by the parties. Funds to finance ARD programs are provided from court 
budgets. 
231 Consultation contribution by the Netherlands, p.1; 2023 Justice Scoreboard, p. 24, noting that in  Slovakia, the 
use of ADR for administrative purposes is not supported and that in Spain, ADR is mandatory in labour law cases. 
232 See 2023 Justice Scoreboard, pp. 31-37. 
233 Charter strategy, p. 5, referring also to the low use and awareness of the Charter in parliaments.  
234 Contribution by the FRA referring to the Statement of the Constitutional Law Committee of Parliament of Finland 
(PeVL 44/2022) regarding Government bill 103/2022 on the amendment of the Aliens Act. The Committee called for 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Directive  (EU)  2016/680,  as  it  did  not  sufficiently  ensure  the  right  to  an  effective  remedy 
enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter. The national parliament considered the that the existing 
remedies were too complicated, making the right to a legal remedy unenforceable in practice, 
and created unequal procedural rights235. 

4. 

Provision of effective legal protection through courts  

The  CJEU  and  national  courts  apply  and  interpret  EU  law  and  therefore  have  a  central  role  in 
safeguarding  effective  legal  protection.  Through  the  preliminary  ruling  mechanism236  and  the 
infringement  procedure237,  the  CJEU  has  also  clarified  relevant  EU  law,  often  interpreting  the 
rights laid down in secondary EU law in light of Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter. 

However, as follows from Article 47 of the Charter, effective judicial protection is more than the 
individual right to judicial review. In line with Article 19(1) second subparagraph TEU, Member 
States must ensure sufficient guarantees for the national courts and tribunals to provide effective 
judicial  protection,  without  requiring  new  legal  remedies.  Through  an  overview  of  cases  on 
effective legal protection, this chapter highlights the essential role of the CJEU and national courts 
in  ensuring  effective  legal  protection  and  access  to  justice  under  EU  law.CJEU  case-law  on 
effective legal remedies 

The  right  to  effective  legal  protection  has  often  been  the  focus  of  preliminary  ruling  requests 
relating to different fields of EU law, including the requirement that Member States must fully 
comply with EU law and the case-law of the CJEU for having the right to a fair trial before an 
independent  and  impartial  court  established  by  law238.  Well-functioning  and  fully  independent 
justice  systems  are  crucial  to  ensure  that  justice  works  to  the  benefit  of  individuals  and 
businesses239, as they should be able to enforce all rights conferred upon them by EU law through 
effective legal protection.  

more  precise  provisions  on  the  possible  national  margin  of  discretion  in  implementing Directive  2013/32/EU,  the 
restrictions of the freedom of movement and the right to challenge a decision on a request for permission to leave the 
reception centre. Also contribution by the FRA referring to the Proposal of the Government of Estonia on amendments 
to the Aliens Act (right to appeal against a decision on a visa challenge), 328 SE (Välismaalaste seaduse muutmise 
seaduse (viisavaide otsuse kohtukaebeõigus) eelnõu 328 SE), 8 February 2021. 
235 Contribution by the FRA referring to the  Explanatory note of the Seimas of the Republic of  Lithuania on the 
amendment of Article 5 and Paragraph 2 of Article 22 of the Criminal Intelligence Law of the Republic of Lithuania 
No. XI-2234 and the Amendment of Article 10 of the Law on State and Official Secrets of the Republic of Lithuania.  
236 Article 267 TFEU. 
237 Article 258 TFEU. 
238 See: Judgment of 18 May 2021, Asociaţia “Forumul Judecătorilor Din România” and Others, C-83/19, C-127/19, 
C-195/19, C-291/19, C-355/19, EU:C:2021:393; judgment of 20 April 2021, Repubblika, C-896/19, EU:C:2021:311; 
judgment  of  2  March  2021,  A.B.  and  Others  (Appointment  of  the  Supreme  Court  judges  –  Appeal),  C-824/18, 
EU:C:2021:153; judgment of 19 November 2019,  AK (Independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme 
Court), C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18, EU:C:2019:982; and judgment of 27 February 2018, Associação Sindical 
dos Juízes Portugueses, C-64/16, EU:C:2018:117. 
239 2023 Rule of Law Report, p. 3. 

29 

 
 
 
 
The CJEU has consistently held that in the absence of precise EU rules, it is for each Member State 
to establish procedural rules to safeguard the rights granted by EU law in line with the principle of 
procedural  autonomy.  However,  in  doing  so,  they  must  ensure  that  those  rules  are  no  less 
favourable than rules governing similar situations under domestic law (principle of equivalence), 
and do not render the exercise of EU legal rights practically impossible or excessively difficult 
(principle  of  effectiveness)240.  In  assessing  whether  Member  States  have  provided  an  effective 
remedy for the rights granted by EU law, the CJEU has commonly referred to the essence and 
purpose of those rights in relation to Article 47 of the Charter. 

In the context of the preliminary ruling procedure, questions regarding the interpretation of the 
right to effective legal protection have emerged in various fields of EU law241.  

A substantial part of the CJEU’s case law on the right to effective legal protection concerns the 
interpretation of the procedural rights directives in criminal matters and clarifying the safeguards 
set  out  in  the  directives.  For  instance,  preliminary  ruling  questions  have  concerned  the 
interpretation of: 

- 

the right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings, including the ban on public references to guilt242, 
the right to be present at trial in the context of hearings via videoconferencing technology243, 
and derogations from the right to be present at trial244;  

-  procedural rights of persons affected by in rem confiscation proceedings245;  
- 
- 

the right of children to effective assistance by a lawyer in criminal proceedings246;  
the right to translation of essential documents for a suspect or accused person who does not 
understand the language of the criminal proceedings247, including the time frame within which 
such right applies248, which documents are considered essential to the purpose of ensure an 

240  Judgment  of  2  March  2021,  Prokuratuur  (Conditions  d’accès  aux  données  relatives  aux  communications 
électroniques), C-746/18, EU:C:2021:152, para. 42. Also judgment of 6 October 2020,  La Quadrature du Net and 
Others, C-511/18, C-512/18 and C-520/18, EU:C:2020:791, para.223 and the case-law cited. 
241 Also Charter strategy, p. 5 and the sources cited therein, noting that the growing body of EU law demonstrates how 
the Charter applies in an increasing number of cases and areas. This is illustrated in particular by the CJEU’s case law 
on  the  enforcement  of  the  right  to  an  effective  remedy  in  areas  such  as  taxation,  asylum  and  migration  or  equal 
treatment in employment.   
242 Judgment of 19 September 2018, Milev, C-310/18, EU:C:2018:732. 
243 Pending case C-760/22, FP and Others. 
244Judgment  of  13  February  2020,  Spetsializirana  prokuratura  (Hearing  in  the  absence  of  the  accused  person), 
C-688/18,  EU:C:2020:94;  judgment  of  23  November  2021,  IS  (Illégalité  de  l’ordonnance  de  renvoi),  C-564/19, 
EU:C:2021:949; judgment of 19 May 2022, Spetsializirana prokuratura, C-569/20, EU:C:2022:401; judgment of 15 
September 2022, HN (Procès d’un accusé éloigné du territoire), C-420/20, EU:C:2022:679. Also, judgment of 19 
May 2022, Spetsializirana prokuratura, C-569/20, EU:C:2022:401. 
245 Pending cases C-767/22 and C-49/23, 1Dream and Others, and pending case C-265/23, Volieva. 
246 Pending case C-603/22, M.S. and Others (Droits procéduraux d’une personne mineure). 
247 Judgment of 1 August 2022, TL () and de traduction), C-242/22 PPU, EU:C:2022:611. 
248 Judgment of 9 June 2016, Balogh, C-25/15, EU:C:2016:423. 

30 

 
 
 
- 
- 

- 
- 

effective defence, to which the right to translation applies249, and when breaches of this right 
can be raised250;  
the right to not be tried or punished twice for the same crime (principle of ne bis in idem)251;  
the effectiveness of remedies for breaches of the suspect or accused person’s rights, including 
the possibility for a court to raise breaches of the rights of defence on its own motion252; 
the right to access a lawyer and the derogations from that right253; and  
the right to information in criminal proceedings254, including the time when information on the 
charges should be provided to enable the suspect or accused person to effectively prepare their 
defence255. 

The CJEU has also addressed effective legal protection in European judicial cooperation, where 
the European Investigation Order (‘EIO’)256 and the EAW257 are prime examples. In order to 
ensure the availability of effective legal remedies, it is essential to ensure that Member States have 
remedies available that are equivalent to those available in similar domestic cases.  

The CJEU has also confirmed that the Framework Decision on EAW provides for comprehensive 
safeguards on effective judicial protection. For instance, on the available remedies in the issuing 
Member State and access to the materials of the case after the surrender258. Further, in a series of 
cases on the rule of law, the CJEU clarified the criteria for refusing or suspending the execution of 
an EAW in situations where the requested person’s right to a fair trial is claimed to be at risk in a 
situation of systemic or generalised deficiencies concerning judicial independence in the issuing 
Member State259. 

249 Judgment  of  15  October  2015,  Covaci,  C-216/14,  EU:C:2015:686;  judgment  of  12  October  2017,  Sleutjes, 
C-278/16, EU:C:2017:757; judgment of 1 August 2022, TL () and de traduction), C-242/22, EU:C:2022:611. 
250 Judgment of 1 August 2022, TL, C-242/22, EU:C:2022:611. 
251 See:  Judgment of 14 September 2023, Bezirkshauptmannschaft Feldkirch, C-55/22, EU:C:2023:670, and judgment 
of 19 October 2023, C-147/22, EU:C:2023:790. 
252 Judgment of 22 June 2023, K.B. and F.S. (Relevé d’office dans le domaine pénal), C-660/21, EU:C:2023:498.  
253 Judgment  of  12  March  2020,  VW  (Right  of  access  to  a  lawyer  in  the  event  of  non-appearance),  C-659/18, 
EU:C:2020:201.  The  CJEU  has  also  clarified  that  the  directive  applies  to  judicial  proceedings  authorising  the 
committal to a psychiatric hospital and permits obligations to dismiss a lawyer against the will of the defendant in 
cases  of  conflict  of  interests,  as  defined  by  national  law  (judgment  of  5  June  2018,  Kolev  &  Others,  C-612/15, 
EU:C:2018:392). 
254 Judgment of 15 October 2015, Covaci, C-216/14, EU:C:2015:686; judgment of 13 June 2019,  Moro, C-646/17, 
EU:C:2019:489. 
255 Judgment of 5 June 2018, Kolev & Others, C-612/15, EU:C:2018:392; judgment of 19 September 2019, Rayonna 
prokuratura Lom, C-467/18, EU:C:2019:765. 
256 Directive 2014/41/EU.  
257 Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender 
procedures between Member States, OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, pp. 1–20.  
258 Judgment of 28 January 2021, Spetsializirana prokuratura (Déclaration des droits) C-649/19, EU:C:2021:75. 
259 Judgment of 25 July 2018, Minister for Justice and Equality (Deficiencies in the system of justice), C-216/18 PPU, 
EU:C:2018:586, and, judgment of 17 December 2020,  Openbaar Ministerie (Indépendance de l’autorité judiciaire 
d’émission), C-354/20 PPU, EU:C:2020:1033 and C-412/20 PPU, L and P. Also, judgment of 13 January 2021, MM, 
C-414/20 PPU, EU:C:2021:4 where the CJEU noted that Framework Decision 2002/584, read in the light of Article 
47 of the Charter requires that the requesting court must be able to carry out a review of the conditions under which 
the EAW was issued. 

31 

 
 
 
Anti-discrimination is also an area where questions regarding the interpretation of the right to 
effective judicial protection have been raised. Sanctions must guarantee real and effective judicial 
protection260  and  ensure  a  genuinely  deterrent  effect  to  prevent  further  discrimination.  This 
involves imposing penalties even in the absence of an identifiable victim261. A purely symbolic 
sanction cannot be considered sufficient262. 

In public procurement, the CJEU has held that in cases where a public procurement procedure 
has been launched without the publication of a contract notice, Member States cannot require a 
litigant to identify the procedure or decision in their application for review or interim measures 
under  Directive  89/665/EC263.  Member  States  may  however  require  that  tenderers,  who 
participated  in  a  public  contract  procedure,  cannot  challenge  a  judgment  of  the  highest 
administrative court by means of an appeal before the highest judicial court, regarding compliance 
with EU law264. In addition, in national proceedings regarding potential false statements made by 
a successful tenderer, the contracting authority is required to weigh the applicant tenderer’s right 
to  an  effective  remedy  against  the  competing  tenderer’s  right  to  protection  of  its  confidential 
business information and trade secrets265. Judicial review must be available against a contracting 
authority’s decision to not initiate a procedure to check whether the tenders have been abnormally 
low266. 

The Unfair Contract Terms Directive267 has led to the development of a rich body of case law 
protecting against unfair contract terms, which also implies a requirement for effective judicial 
protection268.  For  instance,  the  obligation  for  national  courts  to  assess  of  their  own  motion  the 
fairness of the contract terms underlying consumer disputes269, the existence and starting point of 

260  See, judgment 31 May 2013, Asociaţia Accept, C-81/12, EU:C:2013:275, para. 63. 
261  See  Feryn  judgment,  para.  38;  Asociaţia  Accept  judgment,  para. 62.  In  several  Member  States  (e.g. Austria, 
Belgium,  Czechia,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Romania  and  Slovenia), national  legislation  permits 
penalties to be imposed in the absence of a specific victim under certain conditions. 
262  See Asociaţia Accept judgment, para. 64. 
263 Judgment of 14 July 2022, EPIC Financial Consulting, C-274/21 and C-275/21, EU:C:2022:565. Council Directive 
89/665/EEC, OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 33–35.  
264 Judgment of 21 December 2021, Randstad Italia, C-497/20, EU:C:2021:1037. 
265 Judgment of 7 September 2021, Klaipėdos regiono atliekų tvarkymo centras, C-927/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:700. 
266  Judgment  of  15  September  2022,  Veridos  C-669/20,  EU:C:2022:684  referring  to  proceedings  under  Directive 
2009/81/EC, OJ L 216, 20.8.2009, p. 76–136. 
267 Council Directive 93/13/EEC, OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29. 
268 Judgment of 22 April 2021, Profi Credit Slovakia, C-485/19, EU:C:2021:313, para. 54; judgment of 4 June 2020, 
Kancelaria Medius SA, C-495/19, EU:C:2020:431, para. 32; judgment of 17 May 2022, Ibercaja Banco, C-600/19, 
EU:C:2022:394, para. 45; judgment of 17 May 2022, SPV Project 1503 Srl and Banco di Desio e della Brianza SpA, 
C-693/19 and C-831/19, EU:C:2022:395, para. 61; 17 May 2022, Unicaja Banco, C-869/19, EU:C:2022:397 para. 29; 
judgment of 17 May 2022, Impuls Leasing România IFN SA, C-725/19, EU:C:2022:396, para. 46; judgment of 10 
June 2021, BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA, C-776/19 to C-782/19, EU:C:2021:470 para. 29; judgment  29 April 
2021,  Bank  BPH  S.A,  C-19/20,    EU:C:2021:341,  para.  92;  judgment  of  8  September  2022,    D.B.P.  (Crédit 
hypothécaire libellé en devises étrangères) C-80/21 to C-82/21, , para. 88; judgment of 22 September 2022, Servicios 
Prescriptor y Medios de Pagos EFC SAU, C-215/21, EU:C:2022:723, para. 36. 
269  Impuls  Leasing  România  IFN  SA  Judgment;  judgment  of  22  September  2022,  Vicente  (Action  en  paiement 
d’honoraires  d’avocat),  C-335/21,  EU:C:2022:720,  ;  judgment  of 4  June  2020,  Kancelaria  Medius  SA,  C-495/19, 
EU:C:2020:431. 

32 

 
 
 
limitation  periods  for  consumers’  claims  based  on  unfair  terms270,  the  obligation  for  courts  to 
assess  the  fairness  of  a  specific  contract  term  in  a  reasoned  manner  in  order  to  preclude  a 
subsequent  examination  of  the  same  term  based  on  the  principle  of  res  judicata271,  and  the 
allocation of costs272. 

Similarly, in migration and asylum, effective judicial protection plays an important role, and the 
CJEU has ruled that Member States need to comply with certain safeguards in decisions on returns, 
entry bans, removals and detention orders, such as the right to be heard and the right to have access 
to the case file273.  

4.2.  National case-law on effective legal remedies  

In addition to the CJEU, national courts and tribunals have the responsibility to ensure judicial 
protection in the EU under Article 19 TEU274.  

As  such,  Member  States  apply  the  Charter  in  cases  which  concern  the  implementation  of  EU 
law275. The Charter has been most often cited in cases decided by supreme administrative courts, 
related in particular to taxation, confiscation of property, employment discrimination, energy and 
competition,  access  to  information,  data  retention,  asylum,  as  well  as  the  EAW  and  mutual 
recognition of custodial sentences276. The following highlights some relevant recent cases where 
national courts have referred to the Charter, often in combination with provisions of constitutional 
or international law. 

In  the  absence  of  national  provisions  explicitly  implementing  the  procedural  guarantees  of  the 
Charter,  fundamental  rights  claims  in  cases  involving  EU  law  have  been  based  directly  on  the 
Charter. In this regard, Article 47 of the Charter has been granted direct effect by the CJEU, which 
allows individuals to directly rely on this right before the national court277. 

270 BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA judgment; Profi Credit Slovakia judgment; D.B.P. (Crédit hypothécaire libellé 
en devises étrangères) judgment. 
271 Ibercaja Banco judgment; SPV Project 1503 Srl and Banco di Desio e della Brianza SpA judgment. 
272 Servicios Prescriptor y Medios de Pagos EFC SAU judgment. 
273 Judgment of 10 September 2013, G. and R., C-383/13 PPU, EU:C:2013:533 and judgment of 11 December 2014, 
Boudjlida, C-249/13, EU:C:2014:2431.  
274 See: Randstad Italia Judgment, para. 46; Repubblika judgment, para. 49; and A.B. and Others (Appointment of the 
Supreme Court judges – Appeal) judgment, para. 108.   
275 In line with Article 51(1) of the Charter. 
276  FRA,  Fundamental  rights  report  2023,  pp.  48-50.  Also  Fundamental  rights  report  2022,  pp.  33-34,  and  37, 
Fundamental rights report 2021, p. 46. 
277 In its judgment of 17 April 2018, Egenberger, C-414/16, EU:C:2018:257, para. 78, the CJEU established the direct 
effect of Art. 47 CFR, which has been confirmed for instance in: judgment of 6 October 2020, État luxembourgeois 
(Judicial protection against requests for information in tax law), C-245/19 and C-246/19, EU:C:2020:795, para. 55; 
AK (Independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court) judgment, para. 162; judgment of 29 July 2019, 
Torubarov, C-556/17, EU:C:2019:626, para. 56. 

33 

 
 
 
 
For  instance,  in  two  cases,  the  Constitutional  Court  of  Austria278  found  that  the  asylum 
applicants’ right to an effective remedy and in particular their right to a hearing under Article 47(2) 
of the Charter had been breached. In another example related to VAT proceedings, the Supreme 
Administrative Court of Austria279held that in the absence of national provisions implementing 
the right to effective legal protection, including the right to legal aid, the applicant could argue a 
breach of their fundamental rights on the grounds of Article 47 of the Charter.  

The Charter has also been applied in cases where domestic courts have reviewed the legality of 
national laws. Referring to Articles 7 and 47 of the Charter, the Constitutional Court of Belgium 
found several provisions of the national Act on the prevention of money laundering and terrorist 
financing to be contrary to the professional secrecy of lawyers, which it considered protected by 
essential parts of the rights to privacy and to a fair trial. That Act, which implements Directive 
(EU) 2015/849280, was partially annulled281. 

Similarly,  the  Supreme  Court  of  Estonia282  reviewed  the  legality  of  the  national  Aliens  Act, 
according  to  which  decisions  on  the  premature  termination  of  visa-free  stay  could  not  be 
challenged in court. The right of non-EU nationals to enter and stay in Estonia without a visa stems 
from Regulation 2018/1806, and guaranteeing the right to judicial appeal was therefore a matter 
of protecting a subjective right of EU law. Article 32 (3) of the EU Visa Code read in conjunction 
with  Article  47  of  the  Charter  required  Estonia  to  provide  a  procedure  to  challenge  decisions 
refusing visas. Referring to the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, the court held that the 
same interpretation should apply to visa-free stay.  

5.  EU funding for effective legal protection 

Funding  to  build  stakeholders’  capacities  is  an  essential  part  of  the  EU’s  and  its  international 
partners’ efforts to support effective legal protection. The European Commission contributes to 
the strengthening of judicial protection through the Justice programme and the Citizens, Equality, 
Rights and Values programme (CERV).  

278  Contribution  of  FRA,  referring  to  Constitutional  Court  of  Austria,  E4359/2021,  decision  of  17.3.2022,  and 
E4123/2020, decision of 8.6.2021. In the first case, the Federal Administrative Court had not heard the applicant and 
had wrongly assumed the applicant to belong to the Shiite faith. The decision of the Federal Administrative Court was 
annulled. In the second case, the waiving of the oral hearing had been arbitrary, as it had not been possible to establish 
the facts of the case sufficiently precisely. The Constitutional Court set aside the decision. 
279 Contribution of FRA, referring to Supreme Administrative Court of Austria, decision of 23.6 2021, Mag. B; 
Federal Finance Court, Ra 2019/13/0111. 
280 Directive (EU) 2015/849. 
281  Contribution  of  FRA,  referring  to  Constitutional  Court  of  Belgium,114/2020,  decision  of  24.9  2020,  Order  of 
Francophone and Germanophone Bars, Order of Flemish Bars and the Institute of Accountants and Tax Consultants 
and others. 
282 Contribution of FRA, referring to Supreme Court of Estonia, judgment of 20 April 2021, Chancellor of Justice, 
Minister of Justice, Minister of the Interior, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Police and Border Guard Board,  Rostyslav 
Polishchuk, Mykola Ishchenko, Tulundusühistu Loreta, Hobulane OÜ.  

34 

 
 
 
 
5.1.  The Justice programme  

Through the Justice programme283, the European Commission supports a European area of justice 
based  on  effective  and  independent  justice  systems284.  Funding285  is  granted  to  tackle  cross-
border challenges, such as lack of trust between the judicial systems in mutual recognition and 
judicial  cooperation,  gaps  in  digital  communication,  procedures  and  the  transmission  of  legal 
information,  and  scarcity  of  resources  for  training  on  EU  law.  One  of  the  three  strands  of  the 
programme286 is aimed at facilitating the effective and non-discriminatory access to justice and 
redress  for  all287,  including  by  electronic  means,  with  priority  areas  such  as  the  rights  of  all 
victims  of  crime  and  the  procedural  rights  of  suspected  and  accused  persons  in  criminal 
proceedings288. 

Project examples from the Justice programme: 

Led  by  civil  society  organisations,  the  ‘Pioneering  anti-SLAPP  training  for  freedom  of 
expression’ project provides training for 200 lawyers who are likely to represent journalists and 
rights-defenders  targeted  by  strategic  litigation  against  public  participation  in  11  Member 
States289. The project ‘Effective e-access to court decisions’ improves access to national and 
EU  caselaw  in  Lithuania290.  The  project  ‘Improving  GBV  victims’  support  services  and 
access to justice through trauma-informed care’ strengthens support services to traumatised 
victims and raises awareness of a trauma-informed approach in five Member States291. 

Operating  grants  are  provided  to  European  networks  working  on  access  to  justice  and  judicial 
cooperation in civil and criminal matters, as well as to the European Judicial Training Network. 

283 Regulation (EU) 2021/693 repealing Regulation (EU) 1382/2013.  
284 https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/programmes/just2027.  
285 The available budget for 2021-2027 is approximately EUR 305 million. The budget for 2023 is EUR 41 125 000 
and for 2024 EUR 40 691 000, with the following distribution between the programme strands: judicial cooperation 
in civil and criminal matters (27%), judicial training (36%), and access to justice (27%) (percentage allocations based 
on the programme legal basis). 
286 The other two strands aim at 1) facilitating judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters and promoting the 
rule of law, the independence and impartiality of the judiciary (Call for proposals for action grants to promote judicial 
cooperation  in  civil  and  criminal  matters,  including  by  supporting  efforts  to  improve  the  effectiveness  of  national 
justice systems and the effective enforcement of decisions), and 2) supporting judicial training to foster a common 
legal, judicial and rule of law culture, and to support the consistent and effective implementation of EU law Call for 
proposals for action grants to support transnational projects on training of justice professionals covering civil law, 
criminal law or fundamental rights. 
287 Call for proposals for action grants to support transnational projects in the fields of e-Justice, victims’ rights and 
procedural rights.  
288 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/criminal-justice/rights-
suspects-and-accused_en.  
289 https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/how-to-participate/org-
details/999999999/project/101051559/program/43252386/details.  
290 https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/how-to-participate/org-
details/999999999/project/101087157/program/43252386/details.  
291 https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/how-to-participate/org-
details/999999999/project/101056671/program/43252386/details.  

35 

 
 
 
 
The  programme  also  funds  the  European  e-Justice  Portal292,  which  provides  information  on 
national  justice  systems  in  23  languages  to  ease  access  to  justice  across  the  EU.    The  Justice 
programme  is  also  used  to  fund  the  EU’s  cooperation  activities  with  the  Council  of  Europe, 
including activities on child-friendly justice293.  

The HELP programme 

Developed in cooperation between the Council of Europe, the European Commission and the 
FRA,  a  new  e-learning  course  on  the  interplay  between  the  Charter  and  the  European 
Convention  on Human  Rights294  trains  judges,  prosecutors  and  other  lawyers  on  European 
fundamental rights standards and their application at the national level.  

The  course  seeks  to  raise  the  protection  of  fundamental  rights  and  rule  of  law  in  the  EU  by 
increasing  legal  professionals’ knowledge on fundamental  rights  and rule of law. The online 
training courses bring together legal professionals from several Member States, which creates 
opportunities for exchanges between practitioners and builds mutual trust.  

5.2.  Citizens, equality, rights and values (CERV) programme 

Through its CERV programme295, the Commission promotes the implementation of the rights and 
values enshrined in the Treaties, the Charter, and international conventions, by funding activities 
to support rights-based, democratic, equal and inclusive European societies based on the rule of 
law. 

The Union values strand 

The 2021-2027 CERV programme is organised around four strands, namely on 1) Union values; 
2) Equality, rights and gender equality; 3) Citizen’s engagement and participation; and 4) Fighting 
gender-based violence and violence against children. 

To promote the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU, the 2023-2024 CERV work programme covers 
a range of activities to build the capacity of civil society organisations to ensure that the Charter is 
upheld.  Funding  from  the  Union  values  strand  can  be  used  to  support  activities  related  to 
fundamental rights, including to uphold the rule of law and strengthen judicial independence; 

292 https://e-justice.europa.eu/home.do?plang=en&action=home.   
293  The  Council  of  Europe  will  also  develop  guidance  and  training  for  judicial  professionals  on  the  Commission 
Recommendation  on  the  procedural  rights  of  suspects  and  accused  persons  subject  to  pre-trial  detention  and  on 
material detention conditions, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_7570.  
294 European Programme for Human Rights Education for Legal Professionals in the European Union (HELP in the 
EU III). The course covers the European Convention on Human Rights, the (revised) European Social Charter, the 
EU Charter, and other relevant EU and Council of Europe law, as well as relevant jurisprudence.  
295 Regulation (EU) 2021/692. The estimated programme budget for 2021-2027 is EUR 1.5 billion.  

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
protect  fundamental  rights  in  the  digital  age;  build  capacity  on  whistle-blower  protection; 
empower the civic space; and combat hate speech and hate crime296.   

As noted in the Charter strategy, effective judicial protection includes strategic litigation, which 
can  contribute  to  a  more  coherent  implementation  and  application  of  EU  law  and  to  the 
enforcement  of  rights297.  The  Union  values  strand  also  covers  funding  to  build  capacity  for 
strategic litigation to ensure the protection of Charter rights298, for instance by improving the 
knowledge  and  litigation  ability  of  practitioners, legal  professionals,  independent  human  rights 
bodies, and civil society. 

Projects funded under the Union values strand can also be aimed at promoting capacity building 
and awareness-raising on the Charter through training and train-the-trainer activities (such as 
for  experts,  lawyers  and  legal  advisers,  communicators,  policy  and  advocacy  advisers),  and 
practical guidance and learning tools299.  

Under the Daphne strand, financial support is granted to projects on preventing and combating 
gender-based violence, including in the migration context as well as violence against children300. 

As  part  of  cooperation  with  international  organisations,  the  Commission  also  grants  financial 
support  from  the  CERV  programme  to  the  OSCE  /  ODIHR  for  their  knowledge-sharing  and 
standard-setting work on hate crime301. 

296 Funded actions facilitate the implementation of EU priorities in the area of fundamental rights, the rule of law and 
democracy as highlighted in the Rule of Law reports, the Communication on ‘A more inclusive and protective Europe: 
extending the list of EU crimes to hate speech and hate crime’, EU Citizenship Reports, the European democracy 
action plan, the Commission Recommendation on protecting journalists and human rights defenders who engage in 
public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings and the Charter strategy. 
297 Charter strategy, p. 11. 
298 Annex to the Commission Implementing Decision on the financing of the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values 
programme  and  the  adoption  of  the  2023-2024  work  programme.  Call  for  proposals  to  promote  civil  society 
organisations’ awareness, capacity building and implementation of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. 
299  Call  for  proposals  to  promote  capacity  building  and  awareness  on  the  EU  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  and 
activities on strategic litigation relating to democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights breaches. See projects 
‘Making the EU Charter a leading human rights litigation tool in  Hungary’, ‘Strategic Litigation as a Gateway to 
address  the  rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities  in  the  European  Union’,  ‘Developing  Information,  Guidance,  and 
Interconnectedness for (Charter) Rights Integration in Strategies for Enforcement’. 
300  Call  for  proposals  to  prevent  and  combat  gender-based  violence  and  violence  against  children:  call  to 
intermediaries. 
301 Annex to the Commission Implementing Decision on the financing of the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values 
programme  and  the  adoption of  the 2023-2024  work  programme.  These  activities  include  funding  to  improve  the 
support available for victims of hate crime, and justice structures’ responses to hate crime.  

37 

 
 
 
 
 
5.3.  Support under other EU funding programmes 

Funding to advance effective legal protection is also available under other funding programmes. 
Projects funded from the Digital Europe programme302 include projects on e-justice303, which 
have focused on the maintenance and development of IT systems, digitalisation of the service of 
documents and taking of evidence in civil and commercial matters, and the digitalisation of 
judicial cooperation in civil, commercial, and criminal matters304. Similarly, as part of the 
funding granted to equip the public with the knowledge needed in a digital society, projects on 
effective judicial protection305, alternative dispute resolution306 and child-friendly justice307 have 
received funding from the Erasmus+ programme 308. In addition, the Internal Security 
Fund309 finances actions against terrorism and radicalisation, serious and organised crime, 
cybercrime, and the protection of victims.  

Improving legal protection with funding from the Recovery and Resilience Facility 

Several Member States have used funding from the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)310 
to increase the efficiency of their justice systems, reform civil and criminal justice, and promote 
the digitalisation of justice.  

Satisfactorily  fulfilled  milestones  and  targets  from  the  2022-2023  Semester  cycle  include 
initiatives on promoting the accessibility, effectiveness and predictability of the justice system in 
Bulgaria;  increasing  judicial  efficiency  in  Croatia;  supporting  the  digitalisation  of  the  justice 
system in Czechia and Malta; reforming the criminal and civil justice in Italy; strengthening the 
integrity and independence of the justice system in Slovakia; and to boost the rule of law and the 
efficiency of the justice system in Spain311.  

In addition to the RRF, Member States reforms have been supported by the Technical Support 
Instrument “to increase the efficiency of judicial systems”312. The funded projects have sought to 
improve access to courts, support the independence of judicial systems, and increase the efficiency 
of judicial systems by reducing the length of proceedings and redesigning the allocation of cases 
in  courts.  Several  projects  have  focused  on  strengthening  child-friendly  justice  through  the 

302 DIGITAL Europe Work Programme 2023-2024 (.pdf). 
303  Call  for  proposals  for  Digital  transformation.  An  example  of  funded  project  is  ‘Continued  management, 
development and maintenance of the e-CODEX system’ used by several Member States for the digital exchange of 
case-related data in civil, commercial and criminal matters. 
304 DIGITAL Europe Work Programme 2023-2024 (.pdf). 
305 Project ‘Access to Justice in a Multilevel European Constitutional System’. 
306 Project ‘EU Studies for Human Rights Protection and Alternative Dispute Resolution’. 
307 Project ‘Child-Friendly Justice in Action’ funded under Erasmus+ key action Cooperation for innovation and the 
exchange of good practices. 
308 https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu. 
309 https://commission.europa.eu/funding-tenders/find-funding/eu-funding-programmes/internal-security-fund_en.  
310 https://commission.europa.eu/business-economy-euro/economic-recovery/recovery-and-resilience-facility_en.  
311 https://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/recovery-and-resilience-scoreboard/milestones_and_targets.html?lang=en.  
312 With an overall budget of EUR 864 million for the period 2021-2027, under the Technical Support Instrument, the 
Commission has supported 20 projects in the area of judicial reforms in 14 Member States for a total amount of EUR 
10 580 000. 

38 

 
 
 
Barnahus  model313,  improving  the  inclusion  of  children  with  disabilities  in  Slovakia314,  the 
quality  of  the  education  system  in  Romania315,  and  the  strengthening  of  juvenile  justice  in 
Slovenia316. Other projects focus on the modernisation of the justice sector317. 

Under its external action funding instruments, the EU funds projects to bring judicial practices 
in  non-EU  countries  into  line  with  best  practices  from  the  EU  and  international  human  rights 
standards, and to advance the technical capacities of the judiciary318. In addition, promoting rights-
based and gender-responsive justice as well as access to justice and legal assistance are among the 
priorities of the EU action plan on human rights and democracy 2020-2024319. The Action plan 
is implemented through multilateral, global, regional as well as bilateral cooperation and global 
cooperation320 with partner countries and international and regional organisations. In this context, 

313 The Barnahus (children’s houses) work as a service point where law enforcement, criminal justice, child protection 
services, and social and health workers cooperate under one roof. The project “Ensure child-friendly justice through 
effective operation of the Barnahus-units in Finland” contributes to improving the access to and quality of the justice 
system for child victims of violence. The operation of five Barnahus are improved to respond to child sexual abuse 
cases.  Similarly,  “Strengthening  child-friendly  justice  through  effective  co-operation  and  coordination  among 
different Barnahus-type services in the regions of Spain” aims at drafting recommendations and developing a strategy 
and an action plan for scaling up Barnahus operations in the participating regions. In Slovenia, the project “Barnahus 
Slovenia: Supporting child victims of violence” led to the opening of a Barnahus following initial training. The project 
helped to design the operations and prepare a draft law on child-friendly justice, adopted in June 2021. It included a 
nation-wide communication campaign and involved children in the design of the Barnahus. The aim of the project 
“Implementing the Barnahus model in Croatia” is to strengthen the legal framework, including by strengthening the 
capacities of professionals. 
314 The aim of the project is to better integrate children with disabilities in society and to enhance the quality of the 
services  they  receive  from  the  Social  and  Legal  Protection  of  a  Child  and  Social  Guardianship  system  and  allied 
services. 
315 This project promote unitary, inclusive and quality early-childhood education. 
316 This project aims to reduce the backlog in criminal courts and the length of criminal proceedings for cases involving 
young people. It also supports the improvement of young prisoners’ treatment and reintegration through training to 
prison personnel. 
317  In  France,  the  “FranceJustice”  project  aims  at  improving  access  to  justice  by  establishing  an  IT  tool  for 
consultations between citizens and legal professionals, including representatives of services providing information on 
fundamental rights and justice, and victim support associations. The project “Modernising the Civil Procedure Rules 
in  Cyprus”  supported  the  Supreme  Court  in  modernising  the  civil  procedure  rules  in  2021.  Likewise,  the  project 
“Support to the implementation of e-communication in Croatian judiciary”, co-funded with the Council of Europe, 
supports the Ministry of Justice in assessing the current system in light of stakeholder feedback and best practices, 
and provides recommendations for further improvement. 
318 For example, under a call for tenders NEAR/SJJ/2023/EA-OP/0056 for Provision of equipment  and  technical  
capacities  for  the   judicial   institutions, five  contracts were  signed in 2023 for a total value of EUR 3.94 M  for 
specialised police vehicles to transport persons deprived of liberty; a specialised police bus to transport detainees; 
anti-diversion equipment; technical protection systems for judicial buildings; and servers for judicial institutions in 
Bosnia and Herzegovina. 
319 https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/eu-action-plan-human-rights-and-democracy-0_en?s=264. 
320 Bilateral cooperation with several partner countries, including, for example Mongolia, Nigeria, the Philippines, 
Colombia,  Gambia,  Guinea-Bissau  and  Angola.  The  Team  Europe  Democracy  (TED)  is  a  global  thematic  Team 
Europe Initiative involving 15 Member States, launched in 2021 to promote democracy and human rights worldwide. 
Accountability and Rule of Law are key priorities, with a working group dedicated to access to justice and people-
centred justice. 

39 

 
 
 
the EU also promotes dialogue on transitional justice with the African Union321 and implements 
a bi-regional cooperation programme on citizen security and justice in Latin America322.   

Ensuring an effective remedy and taking measures to promote access to justice likewise constitute 
an important aspect for the monitoring of EU candidate countries and potential candidates323. 
The  Commission  encourages  them  to  establish  effective  mechanisms  for  ensuring  judicial 
protection through EU funded programmes324.  

Supporting partner countries’ judicial systems and promoting the rule of law is also covered by 
the  common  foreign  and  security  (CFSP)  funds  allocated  to  civilian  common  security  and 
defence  policy  (CSDP)  missions325,  as  well  as  by  the  mandate  of  some  EU  Special 
Representatives326, which are funded through the CFSP budget. Certain civilian CSDP missions 
also support authorities in strengthening justice systems and advancing access to justice, among 
other tasks327.  

As  regards  funding  provision  in  support  of  effective  legal  protection  by  other  international 
organisations, the EEA and Norway Grants promote partnerships to tackle challenges faced by 
European judicial systems328.  

321 This is done by supporting the implementation of the African Union Transitional Fund by the EU Delegation to 
the African Union with a consortium of specialised agencies. 
322  https://www.elpaccto.eu/en/.  The  second  phase,  to  start  in  2023,  will  be  the  largest  programme  supporting  the 
implementation of the  Team Europe Initiative for Justice and Security, which focuses, for example, on supporting 
actions related to access to justice and people-centred justice. 
323 The enforcement of judicial decisions and the implementation of judgments of the ECtHR are, for instance, reported 
in the country reports as part of the annual Enlargement Package.  
324  Examples  of  actions  under  the  EU-Council  of  Europe  joint  programmes  are  (i)  the  Partnership  for  Good 
Governance for Eastern Partnership countries, aiming at combatting discrimination and protecting the rights of 
vulnerable groups and women through capacity building and dissemination of tools/guidance in accessing justice in 
Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine;  (ii) the Horizontal Facility in the Western Balkans and Türkiye, which addresses 
gender inequalities in the judicial systems in Albania, Montenegro and North Macedonia, (iii) the South Programme, 
which adapted 31 editions of the above-mentioned HELP programme to the national legal contexts and gathered in 
July 2023 HELP tutors and national focal points from the Southern Mediterranean region to discuss common priorities 
for the region and ways to enhance cooperation. 
325https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/performance-and-reporting/programme-performance-
statements/common-foreign-and-security-policy-performance_en.   
326 For example, the European Union Special Representative for Human Rights. 
327 EULEX Kosovo, EU Advisory Mission for Civilian Security Sector Reform Ukraine (EUAM Ukraine), European 
Union Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories (EUPOL COPPS), and the European Union Capacity Building 
Mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali). 
328 https://eeagrants.org/topics-programmes/justice-and-home-affairs/judicial-cooperation. List of grants awarded by 
the Council of Europe within the scope of EU/COE joint programmes and voluntary contributions.  

40 

 
 
 
 
 
6.  Conclusion  

Effective  legal  protection  and  access  to  justice  are  an  essential  part  of  democratic  checks  and 
balances  and  instrumental  in  upholding  the  EU’s  founding  values.  Effective  judicial  and  non-
judicial remedies enable individuals to enforce their rights under EU law, including fundamental 
rights, and prevent those rights from becoming illusory. While accessing justice is important for 
individuals, their cases also make a significant contribution to the interpretation of EU and national 
law. Successful litigation outcomes have potential to shape the legal landscape, and ensure that 
courts and legislators interpret laws in a manner that is compliant with fundamental rights.  

This report has highlighted the numerous judicial and non-judicial remedies available in EU law 
and the recent efforts made to strengthen effective legal protection through the adoption of several 
pending legislative proposals. Such EU law contributes to ensuring effective legal protection and 
access  to  justice  for  all and  highlights the  need  to  continue  the  joint  efforts  of  the  EU  and  the 
Member States in this field. In this regard, the Commission calls on the European Parliament and 
the  Council  to  ensure  that  high  standards  in  effective  legal  protection  are  maintained  in  these 
proposals.  

The  Commission  also  continues  to  build  the  capacity  of  judicial  professionals,  civil  society 
organisations  and  other  stakeholders  to  apply  the  Charter  in  their  daily  work  through  funding, 
maintains regular dialogues with experts and stakeholders and continues to monitor the availability 
of effective legal protection under the Rule of Law reporting cycle. 

As also noted by the Council329, the role of Member States in safeguarding fundamental rights in 
effective legal protection and access to justice is central. They are required to provide remedies 
sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by Union law330. The domestic 
measures and case-law highlighted in this report demonstrate the essential importance of national 
judges and competent authorities in that regard. National authorities ensure that legal protection 
measures are in place at the national level, but at the same time, challenges persist. Although the 
sample  used  in  the  consultations  is  not  large  enough  for  drawing  any  definitive  conclusions, 
stakeholders refer to various remaining barriers, in addition to the challenges to effective judicial 
protection  described  in  the  2023  Rule  of  Law  report.  These  barriers,  such  as  the  insufficient 
provision of information in particular on non-judicial remedies, practical difficulties in using e-
justice  solutions,  insufficient  arrangements  to  monitor  the  rights  of  the  child  in  judicial 
proceedings, and varying degrees of inaccessibility of justice to vulnerable groups, including on 
economic grounds331, can prevent interested parties from seizing legal remedies. 

Furthermore,  while  increasing  references  to  the  Charter  in  the  case-law  of  both  the  CJEU  and 
national courts show considerable interest in framing effective legal protection through the lens of 

329 Council conclusions on strengthening the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union 
of 8 March 2021, 6795/21. 
330 Article 19(1) second subpara. TEU. 
331 See FRA 2023, Civil society consultation on access to justice. Summary of replies to an online survey carried out 
between 30 June and 21 August 2023. 

41 

 
 
 
fundamental rights, there could be more cases brought to the courts where the Charter is applied 
to strengthen the legal protection of an affected individual. This highlights the need to ensure that 
legal professionals receive regular training on fundamental rights and effective legal protection332 
and to enable civil society organisations and human rights defenders to bring strategic litigation 
cases at national and EU level. 

The Commission welcomes the active engagement and contributions from stakeholders and the 
Fundamental  Rights Agency in  preparing this report. It  encourages legal  practitioners, national 
authorities (including the Charter focal points), civil society organisations, human rights defenders 
and other stakeholders to use this report as part of their efforts to improve the effectiveness of legal 
protection from a fundamental rights perspective in their Member States. The Commission also 
invites the European Parliament and the Council to organise dedicated discussions on the report 
and is available to support these exchanges.  

332 See the Charter strategy, p. 12-13, which refers to knowledge of the Charter remaining low among national justice 
practitioners despite its increasing use by national courts.  

42